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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-3) in the reply filed on July 17th, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of manufacturing a metal-resin joint, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 17th, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrases “the entire periphery” and “the other side”, but there is no antecedent basis for these limitations. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as requiring “an entire periphery” and “an other side”.
Claim 1 recites the indefinite phrases “continuous band-shaped” and “continuous band-shape”. Paragraph [0003] of the present specification defines the phrase “continuous band-shaped” as “frame-like”, which renders the claim indefinite. The present specification provides no description of what is considered “frame-like”. A “frame-like” material may “completely surround and contact” a particular member, or alternatively, it might only “completely surround” a particular member, or “at least partially surround” a particular member. It is not clear which interpretation, specifically, should be taken. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a continuous material.
Claim 1 additionally uses the terms “numerous” and “numerously”, but the threshold at which a number of recesses or nanocolumns becomes “numerous” or stand “numerously” is not clear. The present specification provides neither definitions nor discussion elucidating the scope of these terms. It is possible Applicant means “numerous” and “numerously” to be equivalent to a “plurality”, though this assumption would contradict, for example, Applicant’s Figure 6, which depicts five nanocolumns (i.e., it is possible “numerous” and “numerously” are directed to specific, unspecified numbers of recesses or nanocolumns). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying “a plurality” of the recited structures, in place of the terms “numerous” or “numerously”.
Claim 1 uses the phrase “like strings of beads”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what specific structure is meant by the phrase “like strings of beads”, and the present specification provides no description for what is meant by this phrase. The present Figures and specification do not recite or specify any string material. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting columns which comprise particles.
Claim 1 uses the phrases “high nanocolumns” and “low nanocolumns”, which are considered relative terms. It is not clear what renders nanocolumns “high” versus “low”, and the present specification does not define or describe high or low nanocolumns. While the body of the claim describes high nanocolumns as including a height of 40 nm or greater, and low nanocolumns as including a height of less than 40 nm, technically, the terms “high” and “low” could be interpreted as directed to structural features other than height (such as high or low hardness). The present specification does not actually describe high and low nanocolumns as requiring specific heights, and in particular, the specification seems ambiguous. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claimed high and low nanocolumns will be interpreted as having heights of 40 nm or greater than smaller than 40 nm, respectively.
Claim 1 also recites the phrase “no nanocolumn” as having a height that is smaller than 40 nm, but technically, a structure with non-existent nanocolumns cannot be considered to have a height. It thus becomes unclear if Applicant actually intends for the recitation of no nanocolumns, or instead, Applicant is attempting to claim a structure which is not a nanocolumn, yet still has a height. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as including no nanocolumns, and therefore, a non-existent height for such nanocolumns.
Claims 2-3 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 2-3 use the phrases “the entire periphery”, but there is no antecedent for this phrase where it appears. In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 2-3 will be interpreted as reciting “an entire periphery”.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record are Sato (US2022/0209345A1), Kobayashi (US2019/0237378A1), and Uchimura (US2022/0032399A1).
Sato is directed to a lid body for forming a sealed battery, the lid body comprising a aluminum sealing plate 60 (i.e., metal member) encased in sealing material 70 which includes a resin (i.e., a metal-resin joing comprising a metal member, the metal member depicted as having a continuous resin joined portion on a metal surface). Sato depicts the sealing material 70 as providing a joint over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction as fixed to the metal member. The enterface between the aluminum sealing plate 60 and sealing material 70 is airtight (i.e., an interface of the metal member and the resin member between two sides in a width direction is hermetically sealed). Sato does not appear to disclose the claimed recesses (or recessed arranged portion), nor does Sato disclose the claimed nano-roughened portion, or nanocolumns.
Kobayashi is directed to an electronic device comprising a plurality of nanoscopic protrusions (i.e., nanocolumns) located on the surface of bowl-shaped irradiation marks (i.e., a recess arranged portion including a nano-roughened portion having a continuous shape, the nano-roughened portion comprising bowl-shaped recesses dented in the form of a bowl, the nano-roughened portion having nanocolumns derived from a metal that forms the metal member). Further, Kobayashi depicts locations which do not contain nanocolumns (i.e., the recess arranged portion includes a non-nano-roughened portion having no nanocolumns). Kobayashi teaches a process of forming nanocolumns which is similar to that of the claimed invention (i.e., in both cases, pulsed laser processing is applied to a sheet of aluminum, the pulsed laser having a pitch of 70 to 80 microns, a laser wavelength of 1064 nm, a pulse width of 1 nm to 300 nm, an irradiation time per spot of 10 ns to 1000 ns).
However, Kobayashi does not teach forming its bow-shaped irradiation marks and accompanying nanoscopic protrusions continuously over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction. Kobayashi does not teach forming its structure in a single direction (such as a circumferential direction, as depicted in, for example, Figure 3 of Applicant’s drawings). In addition, Kobayashi is not directed to a lid body for forming a sealed battery. Kobayashi makes no mention of using its formed structure with respect to either batteries or lid bodies. Kobayashi, instead, is directed to forming mounting structures for IC chips. Kobayashi is not considered analogous art. Furthermore, although Kobayashi discloses a similar process, technically, Kobayashi does not disclose a substantially identical process. Kobayashi does not disclose Applicant’s peak power level, nor does Kobayashi teach adjusting peak power. Kobayashi also does not depict its protrusions as particulate. Kobayashi also fails to teach the claimed recess diameter.
Uchimura is directed to a metal member depicted as comprising a plurality of bowl-shaped grooves which contain uneven portions of nanometer order (i.e., nanocolumns). At least Figure 27 of Uchimura depicts nanocolumns having heights above 40 nm, and locations which do not contain nanocolumns. Uchimura further discloses a process of formation similar to that of Applicant’s (i.e., in both cases, pulsed laser processing as applied to a sheet of aluminum, the pulsed laser having a wavelength of 1064 nm, a peak output of 20 kW, a pulse width of 50 nms, and a diameter of 75 microns.
However, Uchimura does not teach forming its bow-shaped irradiation marks and accompanying nanoscopic protrusions continuously over an entire periphery in a circumferential direction, nor does Uchimura teach forming its structure in a single direction. In addition, Uchimura is not directed to a lid body for forming a sealed battery. Uchimura makes no mention of using its formed structure with respect to either batteries or lid bodies. Kobayashi, instead, is directed to forming frames for mounting and then semiconductor chips. Kobayashi is not considered analogous art. Furthermore, although Uchimura discloses a similar process, technically, Uchimura does not disclose a substantially identical process. Uchimura does not disclose Applicant’s laser pitch, nor does Kobayashi teach adjusting laser pitch. Uchimura also fails to teach the claimed recess diameter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights