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 .
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 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, the term “nickel-tin alloys” in lines 2 and 3 is indefinite as it is unclear whether this term includes the “nickel-tin alloy” that was previously mentioned in lines 2 and 3 of claim 7 or this term is in addition to the “nickel-tin alloy” that was previously mentioned in lines 2 and 3 of claim 7. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpretated as including the “nickel-tin alloy” that was previously mentioned in lines 2 and 3 of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US20110129733A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]), the surface-treated metal sheet comprising:
a base material ([0011] current collector) which is a metal sheet based on iron or nickel ([0023] foil); and a nickel-tin alloy layer ([0011, 0028] M-Sn alloy grain and where M includes Ni) on at least one side of the metal sheet ([0011] forming plating layer).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1, wherein the nickel-tin alloy layer ([0011]) contains Ni3Sn4 as an alloy phase ([0030] Ni3Sn4 formed).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1, wherein the nickel-tin alloy layer ([0011]) contains, as an alloy phase, Ni3Sn2 ([0030] Ni3Sn2 formed).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1, wherein the metal sheet is an electrolytic foil formed of pure iron, an electrolytic foil formed of pure nickel, or an electrolytic foil formed of a binary alloy of iron and nickel ([0023] foil).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20110129733A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizutani et al. (US20040023119A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1 but does not disclose that the nickel-tin alloy layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 5.00 μm as measured by radio frequency glow discharge optical emission spectroscopy (GDS).
Mizutani discloses a negative electrode thin film layer ([0025] negative electrode thin film layer 12) in which the nickel-tin alloy layer ([0025] including mixed… Sn… Ni) has a thickness of 0.05 to 5.00 μm ([0036] thickness within a range from 1 μm to 30 μm). Mizutani also discloses that too thin thickness of the negative electrode thin film layer 12 less than 1 µm makes it difficult to obtain operations and effects of the negative electrode thin film layer 12, and to achieve a considerable increase in the battery capacity; on the contrary, too large thickness of the negative electrode thin film layer 12 exceeding 30 μm causes cracks of the dense negative electrode thin film layer 12 due to expansion-and-shrinkage of the negative electrode active material during repetitive charge/discharge of the battery ([0036]).
Kim and Mizutani are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface-treated metal sheets with nickel-tin alloys.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the nickel-tin alloy layer of Kim such that the nickel-tin alloy layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 5.00 μm as taught by Mizutani in order to achieve a considerable increase in the battery capacity and prevent expansion-and-shrinkage of the negative electrode active material during repetitive charge/discharge of the battery.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20110129733A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiode (US20200203720A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1, comprising a nickel-tin alloy layer but does not disclose a nickel layer as an underlying layer of the nickel-tin alloy layer
Shiode discloses a surface-treated metal sheet comprising a nickel-tin alloy layer (See annotated Fig. 6 below, plating layer 33) in which a nickel layer (Fig. 6, Ni plating layer 33 b) is an underlying layer (See Fig. 6) of the nickel-tin alloy layer. Shiode also discloses that when the Ni plating layer is positioned as an underlying layer, the outer electrode can have excellent corrosion resistance and excellent surface stability that are the original characteristics of Ni plating ([0081]).
Kim and Shiode are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface-treated metal sheets with nickel-tin alloys.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface-treated metal sheet of Kim such that it comprises of a nickel layer as an underlying layer of the nickel-tin alloy layer as taught by Shiode in order to have excellent corrosion resistance and excellent surface stability that are the original characteristics of Ni plating.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20110129733A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eita et al. (JP2018125280A English Machine Translation provided with this Office Action)
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1 but does not disclose the deposited amount of nickel on the surface where the nickel-tin alloy layer is formed is 2.1 to 65.0 g/m2.
Eita discloses a surface-treated foil containing nickel ([0307] surface-treated foil) in which a surface treatment layer containing Ni has remarkably deteriorated heat resistance at lower concentrations ([0309-0310]) but does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Kim and Eita are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface-treated metal sheets containing nickel.
As the heat resistance is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said deposited amount of nickel on the surface with said heat resistance increasing as the deposited amount of nickel is increased, the deposited amount of nickel would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of deposited amount of nickel cannot be considered critical. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize, by routine experimentation, the deposited amount of nickel on the surface where the nickel-tin alloy layer is formed in the apparatus of Kim such that the range satisfies 2.1 to 65.0 g/m2 to obtain the desired heat resistance of the surface-treated foil. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20110129733A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okuno et al. (US20130108947A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1 but does not disclose the deposited amount of tin on the surface where the nickel-tin alloy layer is formed is 0.05 to 15.0 g/m2.
Okuno discloses a surface-treated metal sheet composed of nickel-tin alloys ([0017] porous current collector) in which the deposited amount of tin may be 10% to 25% by weight and that oxidation resistance cannot be ensured at lower tin content ([0017]). However, Okuno does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Kim and Okuno are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely surface-treated metal sheets containing nickel-tin alloys.
As the oxidation resistance is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said deposited amount of tin on the surface where the nickel-tin alloy layer is formed with said oxidation resistance increasing as the deposited amount of tin is increased, the deposited amount of tin would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of deposited amount of tin cannot be considered critical. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize, by routine experimentation, the deposited amount of tin on the surface where the nickel-tin alloy layer is formed in the apparatus of Kim such that the range satisfies 0.05 to 15.0 g/m2 to obtain the desired oxidation resistance of the surface-treated current collector. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20110129733A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US20050142446A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1 and the nickel- tin alloy may be amorphous ([0055]) but does not disclose that the nickel-tin alloy layer contains, as an alloy phase, a nickel-tin alloy that gives a diffraction peak in at least one of the region of diffraction angle 2θ=40 to 42° or the region of diffraction angle 2θ=46 to 48° as measured by X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKα as an X-ray source.
Yamamoto discloses a nickel-tin alloy ([0300] Sn-Ni alloy) in which the nickel-tin alloy layer contains, as an alloy phase, a nickel-tin alloy that gives a diffraction peak in at least one of the region of diffraction angle 2θ=40 to 42° ([0302] region of 2θ=25° to 50°) or the region of diffraction angle 2θ=46 to 48° ([0302] region of 2θ=25° to 50°) as measured by X-ray diffraction measurement using CuKα as an X-ray source ([0302]). Yamamoto also discloses that the presence of these peaks having a wide half width indicates that the resultant alloy powder is amorphous ([0302]). Further, Yamamoto that the amorphous alloy material has excellent characteristics and it is extremely suitable as a constituent of an electrode ([0025]).
Kim and Yamamoto are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, electrodes with nickel-tin alloys.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the nickel-tin alloy of Kim such that the nickel-tin alloy layer contains, as an alloy phase, a nickel-tin alloy that gives a diffraction peak in at least one of the region of diffraction angle 2θ=40 to 42° or the region of diffraction angle 2θ=46 to 48° as taught by Yamamoto in order to result in an amorphous alloy material that has excellent characteristics and it is extremely suitable as a constituent of an electrode. MPEP 2144.05 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0023]) according to claim 7 and the nickel- tin alloy ([0023]) but does not disclose that the nickel-tin alloy layer contains, as alloy phases, nickel-tin alloys that give diffraction peaks in the region of diffraction angle 2θ=40 to 42° and the region of diffraction angle 2θ=46 to 48°.
Yamamoto discloses a nickel-tin alloy ([0300] Sn-Ni alloy) in which the nickel-tin alloy layer contains, as alloy phases, nickel-tin alloys that give diffraction peaks in the region of diffraction angle 2θ=40 to 42° ([0302] region of 2θ=25° to 50°) and the region of diffraction angle 2θ=46 to 48°([0302] region of 2θ=25° to 50°).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the nickel-tin alloy of modified Kim such that the nickel-tin alloy layer contains, as an alloy phase, nickel-tin alloys that give diffraction peaks in the region of diffraction angle 2θ=40 to 42° and the region of diffraction angle 2θ=46 to 48° as taught by Yamamoto in order to result in an amorphous alloy material that has excellent characteristics and it is extremely suitable as a constituent of an electrode. MPEP 2144.05 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20110129733A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hitoshi et al. (EP1111697A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the surface-treated metal sheet for batteries ([0011]) according to claim 1, wherein the metal sheet is formed of steel ([0023] stainless steel) but does not disclose that the steel is of low carbon steel or ultra-low carbon steel.
Hitoshi discloses a surface-treated metal sheet with nickel alloys ([0007]) in which the metal sheet is a steel sheet of low carbon steel ([0009] 0.003% or less carbon).
Kim and Hitoshi are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, surfaced-treated metal sheets with nickel alloys.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the steel metal sheet of Kim such that the steel is of low carbon steel as taught by Hitoshi because combination of the surface-treated metal sheet and low carbon steel sheet to form a surface-treated low carbon steel sheet is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2141 III(A)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Asao et al. (US20040248011A1) discloses an intermetallic compound such as Ni3Sn4 and Ni3Sn2 ([0042]) with θ: Bragg angle of diffracted rays ([0062]).
Kimura et al. (US20150280208A1) discloses a negative electrode slurry composed of nickel-tin alloys with a deposited amount of slurry preferably 10 to 120 g/m2 ([0074]).
Okuno et al. (US20170069918A1) discloses a porous metal body composed of nickel-tin alloys in which the content ratio of tin becomes 10% by mass or more and 25% by mass or less ([0101]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-5pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 5702701487. 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.
/DAN NGUYEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights