DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6 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.
The term “an imaginary surf located parallel to the surface of the film” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an imaginary surface located parallel to the surface of the film” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how a metal can be located in an “imaginary surface” which is located above the film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-12, & 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al. (KR 20130096177 A), in view of Oshima et al. (US 2003/0121570 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iizuka teaches a lead wire (electrode lead wire member 18) comprising a lead conductor (lead-out sealing portion 21; Par. 0034, Fig. 4b) and a film (corrosion-resistant thin film coating layer 22) covering at least a part of a surface of the lead conductor (Fig. 4b), wherein the film includes a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0033). Iizuka fails to teach a concentration ratio of the first metal to the trivalent chromium compound.
However, Oshima teaches a substrate (Par. 0011) and a film (Par. 0011; trivalent chromate conversion film) covering at least a part of a surface of the substrate (Par. 0006), wherein the film includes a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0008; trivalent chromate-conversion film) and a first metal (Par. 0015-16; the trivalent chromate film contains cobalt ions), and a ratio of a concentration of the first metal to a concentration of the trivalent chromium compound on a surface of the film is 0.01 or more and 4.0 or less (Par. 0069, Table 1; Cr is present in a concentration of 0.3 mg/dm2, and Co is present in a concentration of 0.04 mg/dm2, which corresponds to a ratio of 0.04/0.3 = 0.133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lead wire taught by Iizuka by incorporating the film of Oshima, including a first metal and trivalent chromium in concentrations which result in a ratio of 0.01-4. This would be done to further improve the corrosion resistance of the film, as stated in Oshima (Par. 0071).
Regarding claim 2, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the concentration of the first metal to the concentration of the trivalent chromium compound on the surface of the film is 0.1 or more and 4.0 or less (Oshima Par. 0069, Table 1; Cr is present in a concentration of 0.3 mg/dm2, and Co is present in a concentration of 0.04 mg/dm2, which corresponds to a ratio of 0.04/0.3 = 0.133).
Regarding claim 6, Oshima inherently teaches a uniform mixture of the claimed compounds in the film. The solution must be mixed homogeneously to ensure that the entire substrate is protected from corrosion, and the film must cover the entire substrate. Thus, the first metal is a metal having its highest content rate throughout the film, including a region surrounded by the surface of the film and an imaginary surface located parallel to the surface of the film at a distance of 500 nm from the surface of the film.
Regarding claim 8, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the film further includes metal chromium (Oshima Table 2, Par. 0074; Cr3+ ions are present in the film due to the addition of CrCl3 and Cr(NO3)3.
Regarding claim 10, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the lead wire further includes a thermal fusion layer covering at least a part of the film (Par. 0030; a 2nd sealing layer 23 is laminated on top of the film and is thermally bonded to the film).
Regarding claim 11, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 10, wherein the thermal fusion layer is made of a maleic anhydride-modified polyolefin-based resin (Pg. 2, Par. 2; “said 2nd sealant layer is a polyolefin-type sealant resin film modified with maleic anhydride”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the film is 1 nm or more and 50 nm or less (Par. 0043; the film’s thickness ranges from 0.02 um to 5 um, which corresponds to 20 nm to 5000 nm, overlapping the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the film does not include a hexavalent chromium compound (Pg. 1, Par. 7; “chromium 6 is a harmful substance that affects the human body, and therefore cannot be used”)
Regarding claim 15, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the lead conductor is a nickel-plated metal (Par. 0036, the lead-out sealing portion 21 is plated with nickel).
Regarding claim 16, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the lead conductor is aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Par. 0034, the lead-out sealing portion 21 may be made of aluminum).
Regarding claim 17, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the lead conductor is copper (Par. 0036, the lead-out sealing portion 21 may be a copper plate).
Regarding claim 18, modified Iizuka teaches a power storage device (lithium ion battery 17) comprising the lead wire of claim 1 (Par. 0001).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, in view of Matsuzaki et al. (JP 2001303265 A) and Kim et al. (KR 19990047912 A).
Regarding claim 3, Iizuka teaches a lead wire (electrode lead wire member 18) comprising a lead conductor (lead-out sealing portion 21; Par. 0034, Fig. 4b) and a film (corrosion-resistant thin film coating layer 22) covering at least a part of a surface of the lead conductor (Fig. 4b), wherein the film includes a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0033). Iizuka fails to teach the film including a hydroxide of an element constituting a first metal.
However, Matsuzaki teaches a film (Par. 0034; chemical conversion treatment film) which includes a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0027, 0034; the film has a trivalent chromium compound) and a hydroxide of an element constituting a first metal (Par. 0036; the film may contain calcium hydroxide, which is a hydroxide of an alkaline earth metal), and a ratio of a concentration of calcium to a concentration of the trivalent chromium compound on a surface of the film is 0.01 or more and 1.0 or less (Table 3, Ex. 1; Ca is present in a concentration of 0.1 mg/m2, and Cr is present in a concentration of 0.1 mg/m2; this results in a ratio of 0.1/0.1 = 1, meeting the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film taught by Kim by incorporating a hydroxide of a first metal in an amount which fits the claimed ratio, as taught by Matsuzaki. This would be done to induce precipitation in a damaged part of the film due to a corroded or moist environment (Par. 0036), while ensuring that the hydroxide may self-repair (Par. 0037) and that the chromium’s barrier effect is sufficient (Par. 0035), as stated in Matsuzaki.
Iizuka also fails to teach a ratio of a concentration of the chromium hydroxide to a concentration of metal chromium on a surface of the film.
Kim teaches a substrate (Abstract; steel sheet) and a film (Abstract; “chromium-based coating,” “coating film”) covering at least a part of a surface of the substrate (Abstract; “to form a normal chromium-based coating on a steel sheet”), wherein the film includes a trivalent chromium compound (Pg. 4, Par. 6; chromium hydroxide), and a ratio of a concentration of the chromium hydroxide to a concentration of metal chromium on a surface of the film is 0.3 or more and 0.9 or less (Translated Table 2, Comparative Example d, a concentration of chromium hydroxide is 0.4 mg/m2, and a concentration of metal chromium is 0.9 mg/m2, which results in a ratio of 0.4/0.9 = 0.444).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lead wire taught by Iizuka by incorporating chromium hydroxide and metal chromium into the film in concentrations which result in a ratio of 0.3-0.9, as taught by Kim. This would be done to further improve corrosion resistance, as stated in Kim (Pg. 5, Par. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translated Table 2
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, in view of Oshima, and further in view of Matsuzaki et al. (JP 2001303265 A).
Regarding claim 4, Iizuka teaches a lead wire (electrode lead wire member 18) comprising a lead conductor (lead-out sealing portion 21; Par. 0034, Fig. 4b) and a film (corrosion-resistant thin film coating layer 22) covering at least a part of a surface of the lead conductor (Fig. 4b), wherein the film includes a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0033) and a first metal (Par. 0015-16; the trivalent chromate film contains cobalt ions). Iizuka fails to teach a first metal in the film.
However, Oshima teaches a substrate (Par. 0011) and a film (Par. 0011; trivalent chromate conversion film) covering at least a part of a surface of the substrate (Par. 0006), wherein the film includes a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0008; trivalent chromate-conversion film) and a first metal (Par. 0015-16; the trivalent chromate film contains cobalt ions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film taught by Iizuka by incorporating a first metal, as taught by Oshima. This would be done to improve the corrosion resistance of the film, as stated in Oshima (Par. 0028).
Iizuka also fails to teach a calcium compound in the film.
However, Matsuzaki teaches a film (Par. 0034; chemical conversion treatment film) which includes a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0027, 0034; the film has a trivalent chromium compound) and a calcium compound (Par. 0034), and a ratio of a concentration of calcium to a concentration of the trivalent chromium compound on a surface of the film is 0.01 or more and 1.0 or less (Table 3, Ex. 1; Ca is present in a concentration of 0.1 mg/m2, and Cr is present in a concentration of 0.1 mg/m2; this results in a ratio of 0.1/0.1 = 1, meeting the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film taught by modified Iizuka by incorporating a calcium compound in an amount which fits the claimed ratio, as taught by Matsuzaki. This would be done to induce precipitation in a damaged part of the film due to a corroded or moist environment (Par. 0036), while ensuring that the calcium may self-repair (Par. 0037) and that the chromium’s barrier effect is sufficient (Par. 0035), as stated in Matsuzaki.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuzaki teaches the calcium compound including at least one of calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide, and calcium carbonate (Par. 0036).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, in view of Oshima, and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2009/0020185 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Iizuka fails to teach a first metal. Oshima rather teaches cobalt as a first metal.
However, Inoue teaches an aqueous treatment solution which forms a film on a metal substrate (Par. 0001), which contains trivalent chromium ions (Par. 0038) and a first metal ion, which may be at least one selected from the group consisting of nickel and aluminum (Par. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film taught by modified Iizuka by incorporating nickel or aluminum, as taught by Inoue. This would be obvious because Inoue teaches these two metals as being interchangeable with cobalt (Par. 0038), which is taught by Oshima.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, in view of Oshima, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 19990047912 A).
Regarding claim 9, Iizuka fails to teach a content of chromium included in the film of 0.1-20 mg/m2. Oshima rather teaches a content of 0.3 mg/dm2 in Table 1, which corresponds to 30 mg/m2.
However, Kim teaches a film comprising metal chromium and chromium hydroxide, wherein a content of chromium included in the film is 0.1 mg/m2 or more and less than 20 mg/m2 (Translated Table 1; Adding the amounts of metal chromium and chromium hydroxide in the film in each example, as shown in the two left columns, results in a range of 2.1-2.9 mg/m2, fitting the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film taught by modified Iizuka by incorporating chromium in a content of 0.1-20 mg/m2, as taught by Kim. This would be done to improve the coating’s anti-corrosion properties and further prevent oxidation of metal layers underneath, as stated in Kim (Pg. 2, Par. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
656
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Translated Table 1
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka, in view of Oshima, and further in view of Onuma et al. (US 2021/0273237 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Iizuka teaches the lead wire of claim 1, wherein the film further includes a fluorine compound (Par. 0033; “chromium 3 fluoride”). Iizuka fails to teach a concentration of fluorine on the surface of the film.
However, Onuma teaches a film (Par. 0018; “passive film”) comprising a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0018; chromium oxide) and a fluorine compound (Par. 0041), wherein a concentration of fluorine on the surface is 0.1 atomic % or more and 5.0 atomic % or less (Par. 0041; “the conductive layer may contain … fluorine at a fluorine concentration of 0.1 atom %).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film taught by modified Iizuka by incorporating a fluorine compound at a concentration of 0.1-5.0 atomic %, as taught by Onuma. This would be done to improve the conductivity and corrosion resistance of the film, as stated in Onuma (Par. 0120). Onuma is reasonably pertinent to the problem solved because while the film is used in a battery, it is applied onto a metal substrate (Par. 0065) to resist corrosion by using a trivalent chromium compound (Par. 0067; “corrosion-resistant chromium oxide”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights