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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s Specification are to the published application US 2025/0379225 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 32-1 and 32-S in FIG. 1; 162, 164, and 166 in FIG. 2; 262, 264, and 266 in FIG. 3; 310 and 320 in FIGs. 8-9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, “a binder comprising 1 to 20 wt%” constitutes inconsistent claim language relative to the phrase “in a range from” recited in claim 10, of which claim 11 directly depends upon, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “a binder in a range from 1 to 20 wt%.”
Regarding claim 11, “at least one of a conductive filler and/or a skeleton frame comprising 0.5 wt% to 50 wt%” constitutes inconsistent claim language relative to the phrase “in a range from” recited in claim 10, of which claim 11 directly depends upon, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “at least one of a conductive filler and/or a skeleton frame in a range from 0.5 wt% to 50 wt%.”
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.
Claim 13 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 13, “other lithium transition-metal oxides” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “other” is in respect to, given that “lithium transition-metal oxide” is not listed with another species in the group. For the purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as instead reciting “
Appropriate action is required.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (US 2021/0020912 A1; “Xiao”), in view of Li et al. (CN 103384012 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a solid-state electrolyte (an all-solid-state-battery (ASSB) cell) [0052, 0063, 0067, 0071], a plurality of alternating positive electrodes and negative electrodes with separators disposed therebetween (C cathode electrodes; S separators; and A anode electrodes, where A, C and S are integers greater than zero) [0052, 0054].
Xiao remains silent regarding each of the A anode electrodes comprises: an aluminum-iron (Al-Fe) layer; and a prelithiated Al-Fe layer on the Al-Fe layer.
However, Xiao does disclose that the negative electrodes include a body [elements 62, 172, and 202; 0086-0087, 0092-0096, FIGs. 2, 4-6] and a layer on the body [elements 64, 174, and 204; 0086, 0088-0092, 0100-0105, FIGs. 2, 4-7], wherein the body includes a lithium-aluminum alloy [0094-0095], and the layer is pre-lithiated [0101]. The layer includes a lithium-metal oxide [0101] that is the same as the metal of the lithium-aluminum alloy/lithium-metal alloy [0101].
Li is directed towards a lithium ion battery including a positive pole piece, a negative pole piece, a membrane and electrolyte between the positive pole piece and the negative pole piece [0002, 0015]. Li teaches that the negative pole piece comprises an anode current collector structure including an aluminum alloy layer [element 1, 0005, 0019, FIG. 1] and an aluminum layer disposed on both sides of the aluminum alloy layer [element 2, 0005, 0019, FIG. 1]. The aluminum alloy layer may comprise, inter alia iron [0013, 0022], wherein the alloy metal(s) are in a content 2% of the aluminum alloy layer [0013, 0022].
Xiao and Li each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------A anode electrodes comprising two layers. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the body of Xiao so that the lithium-aluminum alloy composition includes iron in a content 2% of the layer, like that of Li, in order to improve the tensile strength and avoid corrosion, as well as, to prevent the layer from being wrinkled and broken [Li, 0004-0005, 0009]. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layer of Xiao so that the lithium-metal oxide that is the same as the metal of the lithium-aluminum alloy/lithium-metal alloy, is the lithium-aluminum alloy composition including iron, as the two layer may have the same metal composition as taught by Xiao [Xiao, 0101] (MPEP 2144.07).
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the negative electrodes of Xiao as modified by Li (hereinafter “modified Li”) would have the body including the lithium-aluminum alloy composition also include iron in a content 2% of the layer, and the layer that is pre-lithiated and includes the same metal of the lithium-aluminum alloy/lithium-metal alloy also comprise iron in a content 2% of the layer, thereby, in totality, reading on each of the A anode electrodes comprises: an aluminum-iron (Al-Fe) layer; and a prelithiated Al-Fe layer on the Al-Fe layer, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, modified Xiao teaches the ASSB as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Xiao remains silent regarding the prelithiated Al-Fe layer is arranged adjacent to one of the S separators.
However, Li teaches that the membrane is between the positive pole piece and the negative pole piece [0015], wherein the anode current collector structure with the aluminum layer disposed on both sides of the aluminum alloy layer [0005-0006, FIG. 1].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the electrochemical cell of Xiao so that one of the separators is between one of the positive electrodes and the pre-lithiated layer, including being arranged adjacent to the pre-lithiated layer, as the pre-lithiated surface aluminum layer protects the body/aluminum alloy layer [Li, 0005-0006; Xiao, 0111].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the electrochemical cell of Xiao as modified by Li (hereinafter “modified Li”) would further have one of the separators between one of the positive electrodes and the pre-lithiated layer, including being arranged adjacent to the pre-lithiated layer (the prelithiated Al-Fe layer is arranged adjacent to one of the S separators).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xiao teaches the Al-Fe layer defined by claim 4. The body including the lithium-aluminum alloy composition includes iron in a content 2% of the layer, of which is within the claimed range, from 0.5 wt% to 2.0 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In view thereof, the content of aluminum is up to 98%, of which overlaps with the claimed range, from 97.0 wt% to 99.5 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Xiao further discloses that the body has a thickness of greater than about 20 microns [0141], of which overlaps with the claimed range, from 2 μm to 40 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Xiao further discloses that the layer has a thickness of less than or equal to about 10 microns [0105], of which overlaps with the claimed range, from 1 μm to 60 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Xiao teaches the ASSB as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Xiao remains silent regarding a grain boundary distribution (>15°) of the Al-Fe layer is in a range from 20% to 45%.
However, the body of modified Xiao is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed Al-Fe layer in Applicant's specification in terms of comprising:
the lithium-aluminum alloy including iron in a content 2% of the layer, of which corresponds to the claimed and disclosed Al-Fe layer [Claims 1 and 4, Applicant’s Specification ¶0033], and overlaps with the claimed and disclosed Fe content range, from 0.5 wt% to 2.0 wt% [Claim 4, Applicant’s Specification ¶0033] (MPEP 2144.05(I)), wherein
in view thereof, the content of aluminum is up to 98%, of which overlaps with the claimed and disclosed Al content range, from 97.0 wt% to 99.5 wt% [Claim 4, Applicant’s Specification ¶0033] (MPEP 2144.05(I)),
a thickness of greater than about 20 microns, of which overlaps with the claimed and disclosed range, from 2 μm to 40 μm [Claim 6, Applicant’s Specification ¶0033] (MPEP 2144.05(I)), and wherein
Applicant’s Specification ¶0028 and ¶0037 explicitly state that “the introduction of Fe atoms into the Al layer increases the grain boundary distribution”, thereby highlighting the importance of Fe in the layer composition, and thus the importance of the content/amount of Fe in the layer as well (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Given that the body of modified Xiao is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed Al-Fe layer in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(d), it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the body of modified Xiao would have necessarily exhibited a grain boundary distribution (>15°) in a range from 20% to 45%, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the electrolyte that may be a solid form, may be disposed in the pores of the porous separator [Xiao, 0052, 0055, 0063, 0067]. Both the separator and the electrolyte are disposed between the positive electrodes and negative electrodes [Xiao, elements 146 and 200, 0052, 0054, FIGs. 4 and 6]. The electrolyte may be in an amount greater than or equal to about 6 weight percent to less than or equal to about 16 weight percent [Xiao, 0115], of which overlaps with the claimed range, from 10 to 100 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). The electrolyte may be the only element between the positive electrodes and negative electrodes, and therefore, may be in an amount 100 weight percent between the positive electrodes and negative electrodes [Xiao, FIGs. 4 and 6], of which also overlaps with the claimed range, from 10 to 100 wt%, thereby also rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Xiao further discloses that the positive electrodes include active material [Xiao, 0072] in an amount greater than about 80% by weight [Xiao, 0075], of which overlaps with the claimed range, from 30 to 98 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). The positive electrodes further include a binder in an amount greater than or equal to about 1 % by weight to less than or equal to about 20% by weight [Xiao, 0075], of which overlaps with the claimed range, from 1 to 20 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Xiao further discloses that the positive electrodes include positive electroactive material (cathode active material) [Xiao, 0072-0073], of which includes lithium transition metal oxides [Xiao, 0073] with spinel phase (spinel) [Xiao, 0073].
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and read on the anode electrode defined by each and every limitation of claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 14 above, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the Al-Fe layer defined by claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, in view of the rejection of claim 14 above, the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the prelithiated Al-Fe layer defined by claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, in view of the rejection of claim 14 above, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the grain boundary distribution (>15°) defined by claim 19.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Li as applied to claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Wu (CN 116706080 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Wu”). Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Li as applied to claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Wu.
Regarding claim 5, modified Xiao teaches the ASSB set forth above in the rejection of claim 4.
Modified Xiao remains silent regarding the Al-Fe layer comprises silicon in a range from 0.01 wt% to 0.8 wt%.
Wu is directed towards a secondary battery [n0004-n0005, n0152, n0154] including an aluminum foil comprising aluminum alloy materials for a negative electrode [n0005, n0007, n0054, n0058, n0128]. Wu teaches that the aluminum alloy material may contain Al, Fe, and Si [n0074], wherein based on 100 wt% of the aluminum alloy material, the Al content may be 99.25 wt% to 99.79 wt%, the Fe content may be 0.15 wt% to 0.5 wt%, and the Si content may be 0.03 wt% to 0.1 wt% [n0075].
Xiao, Li, and Wu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------A anode electrodes. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the body of modified Xiao, so that the lithium-aluminum alloy additionally includes Si in a content of 0.03 wt% to 0.1 wt%, like that of Wu, wherein inclusion of the alloy element(s) enables the body to have a suitable density, and therefore have a high gravimetric energy density, high tensile strength, and high conductivity [Wu, n0011, n0017, n0076]. Additionally, the raw material elements of the aluminum alloy material are inexpensive and readily available, thereby making the aluminum foil have a low manufacturing cost [Wu, 0076].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the body of modified Xiao would further have the lithium-aluminum alloy additionally includes Si in a content of 0.03 wt% to 0.1 wt%, of which is within the claimed range, from 0.01 wt% to 0.8 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 14 above, the rejection of claim 5 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the Al-Fe layer defined by claim 16.
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the body of modified Xiao would further have the lithium-aluminum alloy additionally includes Si in a content of 0.03 wt% to 0.1 wt%, of which overlaps with the claimed range, from 0.05 wt% to 0.8 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Li as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Ruther et al. (US 2023/0197925 A1; “Ruther”). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Li as applied to claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Ruther.
Regarding claim 3, modified Xiao teaches the ASSB as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Xiao further discloses a negative electrode current collector (a current collector) [element 194, 0121-0122, FIG. 6].
Modified Xiao remains silent regarding the Al-Fe layer is arranged adjacent to one of the S separators and the prelithiated Al-Fe layer is arranged between the current collector and the Al-Fe layer.
Ruther is directed towards solid-state electrochemical cells [0002] comprising a negative electrode [0032]. Ruther teaches that the negative electrode may include a current collector layer [0032], an electrode composite prelithiated with lithium on top of the current collector layer [0031, 0035, FIG. 2A], and a lithium-containing layer on top of the electrode composite [0031, 0035, FIG. 2A] and in contact with a solid electrolyte separator layer [0049]. The prelithiated electrode composite may include an active material [0036-0038], while the lithium-containing layer may include a lithium metal alloy [0042].
Xiao, Li, and Ruther each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------A anode electrodes. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell of modified Xiao so that the negative electrode current collector, the separators, the body, and the layer are all in the same embodiment, in order to collect and facilitate electron and lithium transportation, as well as to protect adjacent layers (MPEP 2143(I)(F)), wherein the negative electrode current collector may be positioned in different areas of the electrochemical cell and next to various layers [Xiao, 0122, FIGs. 5-6]. Additionally, there is a finite number of elements: the negative electrode current collector, the separators, the body, and the layer, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have tested different arrangements of these elements during assembly of the electrochemical cell, such that this testing would have encompassed all the different possible arrangements, including the arrangement taught by Ruther, wherein the body is arranged adjacent/in contact with the separator, and the layer that is prelithiated is arranged between the negative current collector and the body, thereby, encompassing the arrangement as defined by claim 3 (see MPEP 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the rejection of claim 14 above, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the anode electrode defined by claim 15.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Li as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Yakovleva et al. (US 2019/0221886 A1; “Yakovleva”). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Li as applied to claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Yakovleva.
Regarding claim 9, modified Xiao teaches the ASSB as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Xiao remains silent regarding the lithium element is in a range from 0.02 mg/cm2 to 1.30 mg/cm2.
Yakovleva is directed towards a solid-state battery comprising a cathode, an anode and a solid electrolyte [0010, 0021, 0023]. Yakovleva teaches that the anode comprises a current collector, an active anode material thereon, and a prelithiated lithium composition on the active anode material [0021-0023, 0037-0039, 0042]. Yakovleva exemplifies that the prelithiated lithium composition may comprise 0.15 mg/cm2 lithium metal [0050-0051].
Additionally, Xiao further discloses that pre-lithiation creates a stoichiometric excess of lithium within electrode, thereby creating a lithium reservoir [0090]. The lithium reservoir may compensate for lithium loss during cycling [0090]. Furthermore, in view of the modification set forth above in ¶22, Xiao further discloses that the amount of lithium in the lithium-aluminum alloy may be controlled [0095], thereby balancing electrochemical activity and mechanical strength [0097].
Xiao, Li, and Yakovleva each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------A anode electrodes comprising two layers. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layer of modified Xiao, so that it includes lithium in an amount 0.15 mg/cm2, in order to provide sufficient amount of lithium required to compensate for the first cycle losses due to formation of a solid electrolyte interface, or other side reactions [Yakovleva, 0050]. Additionally, in view thereof, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the lithium content may be adjusted and optimized, in order to balance electrochemical activity and mechanical strength [Xiao, 0097] (MPEP 2144.05(II)). The aforementioned lithium content is within the claimed range, from 0.02 mg/cm2 to 1.30 mg/cm2, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 20, in view of the rejection of claim 14 above, the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity) and reads on the anode electrode defined by claim 20.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Li as applied to claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Makino et al. (US 2019/0372160 A1; “Makino”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xiao teaches the ASSB set forth above in the rejection of claim 10.
Modified Xiao remains silent regarding the solid electrolyte comprises at least one of: a binder comprising 1 to 20 wt%, and at least one of a conductive filler and/or a skeleton frame comprising 0.5 wt% to 50 wt%.
Makino is directed towards a solid electrolyte composition and an all-solid state secondary battery [0002, 0006, 0013, 0025, 0060]. Makino teaches that the solid electrolyte composition includes an inorganic solid electrolyte and a binder [0013, 0085], wherein the binder is in an amount 0.01% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less with respect to 100% by mass of the solid component in the solid electrolyte composition [0201-0202].
Xiao, Li, and Makino each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – a solid electrolyte. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell of modified Xiao so that the solid-state electrolyte includes a binder in an amount 0.01% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less with respect to 100% by mass of the solid component in the solid-state electrolyte, in order to enhance bonding properties with the inorganic particles and to satisfy ion conductivity [Makino, 0005, 0055, 0176, 0201, 0299, 0355]. The aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed range, a binder comprising 1 to 20 wt%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Sawa et al., US 2017/0356073 A1 – teaches an aluminum alloy including Si: 0.2 to 1.2 mass %, Mg: 0.2 to 1.5 mass %, Ti: 0.005 to 0.15 mass %, Fe: 1.0 mass % or less [0017, 0030].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights