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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 1. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 14-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections (103, double patenting) of the claims are withdrawn based on applicant’s comments with respect to Ravdel and Yang (based on applicant’s comments, it appears Yang is not necessary in the rejections); however, a new ground of rejection (112 new matter, 103 and double patenting excluding Yang) is provided based on a reinterpretation of the claim language and a reinterpretation of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Yan does not suggest a reason for providing a three layer laminate coating in the holes of Ravdel’s substrate filled with the active material; specifically, applicant takes issue with Yan’s suggestion of the second protective layer, which is responsible for the enhance adhesion of the metal conductive layer, because “the risk of the conduction layer becoming detached is much lower within the holes where geometry of the coating provides its own protection against detachment” (emphasis added). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant has not presented any evidence to support their conclusion. Furthermore, even assuming the risk of the conduction layer detaching is “lower” in the hole, detachment is still conceivable since “lower” is not zero; hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the second protective layer suggested by Yan provided the detachment of the conduction layer can be further improved (i.e., reduced/eliminated).
Applicant’s other argument is related to the feasibility of the combination of Ravdel and Yan. Applicant argues (by way of the declaration) that Yan’s method (dual sided reciprocating electron beam evaporation) of forming the layers cannot be applied/used on the porous substrate of Ravdel because the holes of Ravdel’s substrate inhibit the direct line of sight between the source of the beam and the substrate; hence, concluding the combination would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. These arguments are not persuasive.
MPEP 2164 describes the enablement requirement:
The enablement requirement refers to the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph that the specification describe how to make and how to use the invention. The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application or patent (emphasis added).
The purpose of the requirement that the specification describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention is to ensure that the invention is communicated to the interested public in a meaningful way. The information contained in the disclosure of an application must be sufficient to inform those skilled in the relevant art how to both make and use the claimed invention (emphasis added).
The instant specification describes the layers may be formed using physical vapor deposition (PVD), wherein the physical vapor deposition is at least one of evaporation deposition, of which electron beam evaporation is a subset, and other coating methods are also listed, see e.g., instant published [0091, 0101]; the instant disclosure provides no other details or limitations with respect to the methods. Based on applicant’s disclosure and the enablement requirement (MPEP 2164), the instant specification suggests one of ordinary skill in the art who knows and uses physical vapor deposition (e.g., evaporation methods) and coating methods has sufficient knowledge to configure the method to form the claimed layers. In view of the foregoing, considering Yan suggests a physical vapor deposition method (e.g., evaporation coating [0001], a particular configuration of the PVD method, i.e., electron beam evaporation [0020-0022]) to form the layers, Yan possess sufficient knowledge to configure the physical vapor deposition method to form the claimed invention. Moreover, Ravdel discloses using physical vapor deposition to form layers (see e.g., 30, 40, 50, 70) in the holes of the substrate (see e.g., Fig. 8), as well as other techniques (sputtering, electroless plating, painting, etc.), see e.g., [0071] and Fig. 8. Considering the claim is not limited to any particular method of forming the layers and the prior art discloses physical vapor deposition as well as other methods capable of forming layers within the holes (evidenced by Ravdel), the modification of Ravdel with Yan is feasible through various methods known to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the claimed layers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 includes a limitation requiring holes in the current collector; further, active material is filled in the holes; this feature is supported by instant Fig. 6. The claim also recites “the current collector is provided with a plurality of positive electrode active material containing holes penetrating through the current collector”. While instant Fig. 7 appears to suggest the current collector is provided with a plurality of positive electrode active material containing holes penetrating through the current collector, such a feature is not suggested in combination with the active material filled in the holes; thus, the combination of features in claim 1 is considered new matter. Claims 2, 4-11, and 14-20, which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons. Examiner interprets the claims as shown in Fig. 6, i.e., the current collector holes are filled with active material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravdel (US 2012/0315537), in view of Yan et al. (CN 107123812), Kian et al. (US 2016/0185087), and Forier et al. (US 2016/0107425), hereinafter Ravdel, Yan, Kian, and Forier (all of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Ravdel suggests an electrode plate for a positive electrode ([0038, 0068-0069, 0078]) of a battery comprising a current collector (1) and a positive electrode active material layer formed on at least on surface of the current collector (see e.g., Figs. 10-11, [0075], claim 23), wherein the current collector comprises an polyethylene terephthalate insulation layer (10, [0048]), an aluminum conductive layer (30, 40, 50; [0038, 0068-0069]) located on at least one surface of the insulation layer (10), e.g., upper surface as annotated in Fig. 1 below, and the current collector (1) is provided with a plurality of holes (60) penetrating through the current collector, see e.g., Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
866
1636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5, and 14-16, Ravdel may further be modified by Yan to teach the additional features of claims 1, 4, 5, and 14; annotated Fig. 1 of Ravdel is included to point out the additional features of claims 1, 4, 5, and 14. The dot-dot line surrounding the surface of insulation layer 10 represents a surface of the conductive layer (30, 40, 50) facing toward the insulation layer (10), while the dot-dash line surrounding the surface of the conductive layer (30, 40, 50) represents a surface of the conductive layer facing away from the insulation layer (10). The insulation layer 10 of Ravdel is covered by a metal conductive layer (30, 40, 50). The metal conductive layer (30, 40, 50) covers the entire surface of the insulation layer 10, see e.g., Fig. 1, paras. [0057], and [0060]. Ravdel does not teach a first protective layer selected from a group consisting aluminum oxide (relevant to instant claims 1, and 4), or a second protective layer selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxide (relevant to claim 5), with respect to the conductive layer (30, 40, 50) and the insulation layer (10). However, Yan teaches a composite positive electrode current collector comprising an insulation layer (1) with an aluminum conductive layer (“aluminum metal coating layer 3”) on both surfaces of the insulation layer (1), see e.g., para. [0011, 0034, 0036] and Fig. 1. Yan suggests including a first protective layer (anti-oxidation layer 4) on a surface of the aluminum conductive layer (3) facing away from the insulation layer (1) to prevent the aluminum conductive layer (3) from being oxidized and helps the aluminum conductive layer from falling off ([0028]), and a second protective layer (adhesion enhancement layer 2) on a surface of the aluminum conductive layer (3) facing towards the insulation layer (1) to prevent the aluminum conducive layer (3) from easily falling off and causing loss of performance of the aluminum conductive layer (3), [0027]. See also [0036, 0038] and Fig. 1. The first protective layer (4) is made of a metal oxide selected from a group consisting aluminum oxide (see e.g., [0038]) and the second protective layer (2) is made of metal oxide selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxide, see e.g., paras. [0036]. The first protective layer (4) has a thickness D3 (i.e., 10 nm to 100 nm, see e.g., para. [0038]). The second protective layer (2) has a thickness D3’ (i.e., 10 nm to 100 nm, see e.g., para. [0036]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05, I. Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the values within each range of D3 and D3’, because the normal desire of scientists or artisans is to improve upon what is already generally known, which provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination of ranges, Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382, MPEP 2144.05, II., A. Finally, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem (i.e., adhesion and preventive oxidation of conductive layer) and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., disclosed thickness ranges of D3 and D3’), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Thus, there is motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to cover the entire surface of the aluminum conductive layer (30, 40, 50) facing away from the insulation layer (10), represented by dot-dash line in annotated Fig. 1 of Ravdel, with a first protective layer (i.e., 4) made of aluminum oxide having a thickness D3, as suggested by Yan, to prevent the surface of the aluminum metal (e.g., aluminum conductive layer 30, 40, 50 of Ravdel) from being oxidized. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to cover the entire contact surface between the insulation layer (10) and the aluminum conductive layer (30, 40, 50), represented by the dot-dot line in annotated Fig. 1 of Ravdel, i.e., the entire surface of the aluminum conductive layer (30, 40, 50) facing towards the insulation layer 10, by a layer of aluminum oxide having a thickness of D3’, to prevent the aluminum conductive layer (30, 40, 50) from falling off, thereby preventing performance loss, as suggested by Yan.
Annotated Fig. 1 of Ravdel clearly shows the modification of Ravdel with Yan suggests a three-layer laminated conductive structure. That is, the dot-dot line (location of the second protective layer, 2, suggested by Yan), the conductive layer (30, 40, 50 of Ravdel), and the dot-dash line (location of the first protective layer, 4, suggested by Yan) form the claimed three-layer laminated conductive structure. This three-layer laminated conductive structure is disposed on an upper surface of the insulation layer 10 (annotated in Fig. 1 above), a lower surface of the insulation layer 10 (annotated in Fig. 1 above), and on wall surfaces of the plurality of holes (annotated in Fig. 1 above).
Regarding the claimed mathematical relationship between D3 and D3’, Yan provides motivation for the selection of each layer thickness individually. For example, Yan teaches layer 2 (D3) is the adhesion enhancement layer; the selection thereof in a range of 10 – 100 nm achieves good bonding performance, such that the aluminum conductive layer (3) does not easily fall off, [0036]. Further, layer 4 (D3’) is selected in the range of 10 – 100 nm from the view point anti-oxidation of the aluminum conductive layer (3), [0038]. In selecting each thickness value individually, the claimed mathematical relationship (0.5D3 ≤ D3’ ≤ 0.8D3) is satisfied, with the expectation of enhanced bonding with, and anti-oxidation of, the aluminum conductive layer (3). "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In this case, Yan discloses a finite number of solutions with respect to the thickness of each layer, i.e., thickness of layer 2 (D3) and the thickness of layer 4 (D3’), to achieve some advantage, i.e., adhesive bonding and antioxidation, respectively; one of ordinary skill in the art would pursue the thickness values disclosed by Yan for each layer, thereby satisfying the claimed mathematical relationship, with the expectation of good bonding performance and anti-oxidation of the aluminum conductive layer 3.
Regarding Claim 1, Ravdel suggests the insulation layer 10 (i.e., polyethylene terephthalate) having a thickness D1 between 1 µm- 8 µm (e.g., T1 is between 4-10 µm, para. [0041], hence overlaps with D1), is cut by a laser to form holes, e.g., paras. [0041], [0056], and [0105]-[0107]. Ravdel does not teach a light transmittance of the insulation layer between 15 % to 90 %. However, the laser cutting performed by Ravdel to form the openings/holes can be improved in view of Kian and Forier. Kian is concerned with cutting insulating layers (e.g., polymer films) using lasers (e.g., CO2 lasers). Specifically, Kian suggests incorporating various agents into the insulating layer (i.e., polymer film) to increase laser cutting speeds, see e.g., para. [0022]. Kian explains that low absorbance insulating films, and thus high optical transmittance insulating films, exhibit poor cutting performance (para. [0007] and Tables 4-6); however, incorporating agents to increase optical absorbance (hence, decrease transmittance T) increases laser cutting speeds without increasing laser power, see e.g., paras. [0011], [0022], [0027], [0037]-[0038] and Tables. In view of the foregoing, Kian provides motivation to include a colorant into the insulation layer of Ravdel for adjusting light transmittance T for the purpose of improving laser cutting speeds of the insulating layer. Further, Forier, also concerned with CO2 laser cutting of resin films, teaches transparent resin films result in decreased cuttability, where a high quality cut may not be obtained, para. [0020, 0037-0038]. As such, Forier suggests the polyethylene terephthalate resin film includes a colorant for adjusting the light transmittance, T, to improve cuttability and cutting speed, see e.g., paras. [0020, 0028- 0032, 0037-0038]. The resin film preferably has a total light transmittance of 50% or lower to achieve significantly improved cuttability and cutting speed, see e.g., paras. [0020], and [0025]. It is noted that Forier contemplates films having a thickness of 10 µm to 150 µm, see e.g., para. [0044]. In view of the foregoing, Forier suggests a light transmittance value of the colorant containing polyethylene terephthalate film, having a thickness of 10 µm to 150 µm, is preferably 50% or lower because it leads to improved cut-ability and cutting speed. In view of the overlapping insulating film thickness of Ravdel (i.e., 1 µm to 100 µm polyethylene terephthalate, para. [0041, 0048]) and Forier (i.e., 10 µm to 150 µm polyethylene terephthalate resin, para. [0044, 0037]), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a colorant (as suggested by Kian and Forier) in the polyethylene terephthalate insulating layer of Ravdel having a thickness D1, and to adjust the light transmittance T to 50% or lower with the expectation of improved cut-ability and cutting speed of the insulating film with the CO2 laser. The transmittance disclosed in the prior art overlaps with the claimed range or is close, thus obvious in view of MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Ravdel teaches an electrode plate (see e.g., Fig. 10) comprising the current collector (1) and a positive electrode active material layer formed on at least one surface of the current collector, see e.g., Fig. 10 and paras. [0075], [0077]. Ravdel further teaches the electrode active material (shown in Fig. 10) may completely fill and occlude the through hole of the current collector or partially fill the hole, e.g., 1-100%, see e.g., para. [0075, 099]. Ravdel was modified with Yan to suggest the first protective layer on the surface of the conductive layer facing away from insulation layer. Thus, the combination of Ravdel and Yan suggests the first protective layer contacts the positive electrode active material layer; further, in completely filling the hole with active material (e.g., 100%), Ravdel, as modified by Yan, suggests a part of the positive electrode active material layer formed on the current collector is partially or entirely connected to a part of the electrode active material layer filled in the plurality of holes.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, the modification of Ravdel with Yan suggests a part of the aluminum conductive layer (30, 40, 50) located on the at least one surface (e.g., upper surface, and/or lower surface, as annotated in Fig. 1 above) of the insulation layer (10) is partially or entirely connected to a part of the conductive layer (30, 40, 50) located on the wall surfaces (annotated in Fig. 1) of the plurality of holes (60), see e.g., Figs, 1 and 10.
Further regarding claim 2, each of the plurality of holes (60) has an aperture in a range of 0.001 mm to 3 mm (e.g., 0.5 micrometers to 1000 micrometers, see e.g., para. [0063]) and two adjacent holes of the plurality of holes has a spacing in a range of 0.2 mm to 5 mm (e.g., D1 or D2 is 0.1 to 40 mm, see e.g., para. [0046] and Fig. 2). Finally, Ravdel teaches an area ratio of the plurality of holes to an entire surface of the conductive layer located on one surface of the insulation layer is 0.1 % to 30 %, see e.g., 10 % to 99.9 %, para. [0047]. Note that each claimed range is within the range disclosed in the prior art, thus obvious in view of MPEP 2144.05, I., recited above under the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claims 7, 17, and 18, Ravdel teaches the aluminum conductive layer (30, 40, 50) has a thickness D2 (T2, T3, T4) in a range of 30 nm to 3 micrometers (or 300 nm to 2 micrometers, or 500 nm to 1.5 micrometers), e.g., 100 nm to 20 micrometers, see e.g., para. [0062]. The claimed range overlaps with the range of the prior art, or is close, thus obvious for the reasons set forth in MPEP 2144.05, I., recited above under the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the electrode plate described by Ravdel is a positive electrode plate, see e.g., para. [0078], in an electrochemical device (i.e., a rechargeable battery, lithium ion battery, lithium polymer battery) comprising the positive electrode plate (101), a negative electrode plate (102), and a separator (103), see e.g., para. [0100].
Regarding Claim 6, as noted in the rejection of claim 7, Ravdel teaches the thickness of the conductive layer D2 (T2, T3, T4) is in a range of 30 nm to 3 micrometers, e.g., 100 nm to 20 micrometers, or more specifically 1 micrometer to 15 micrometers, see e.g., para. [0062]. Further, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, Yan teaches the thickness D3 of the first protective layer (4) is 10 nm to 100 nm, see e.g., para. [0038], while the thickness D3’ of the second protective layer (2) is 10 nm to 100 nm, see e.g., para. [0036]. Each of these ranges overlap with the claimed ranges or are merely close, hence obvious for the reasons set forth in MPEP 2144.05, I, recited under the rejection of claim 1. Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the values within each range to satisfy D3 ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3 ≤ 200 nm, D3’ ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3’ ≤ 200 nm, as claimed, because the normal desire of scientists or artisans is to improve upon what is already generally known, which provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination of ranges, Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382, MPEP 2144.05, II., A. Finally, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem (i.e., adhesion and preventive oxidation of conductive layer) and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., disclosed thickness ranges of D3, and D3’), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with the expectation of achieving good adhesion of the conductive layer to the insulation layer and to prevent the oxidation of the conductive layer. Thus, there is motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, the modification of Ravdel with Yan teaches a part of the three-layer conductive structure disposed on the wall surfaces of the plurality of holes is entirely connected to a part of the three-layered conductive structure disposed on the upper surface and the lower surface of the insulation layer, see annotated Fig. 1 and rejection of claim 1. Further, Ravdel teaches an electrode active material layer formed on an upper surface and a lower surface of the current collector (1), see e.g., Fig. 10 and paras. [0075], [0077]. The electrode active material (shown in Fig. 10) may completely fill and occlude the through hole of the current collector, e.g., 100%, see e.g., para. [0075, 0099]. Thus, Ravdel teaches the electrode active material layer is further filled in the plurality of holes (60), and a part of the electrode active material layer formed on the current collector is entirely connected to a part of the electrode active material layer filled in the plurality of holes.
Claims 2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravdel, Yan, Kian and Forier in view of Doi et al. (JP 2003-031224, of record), hereinafter Doi.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Ravdel teaches a part of the aluminum conductive layer located on the at least one surface of the insulation layer (e.g., 30, 40 of 30, 40, 50) is partially or entirely connected to a part of the conductive layer (e.g., 50, of 30, 40, 50) located on the wall surfaces (20) of the plurality of holes (60), see e.g., Figs, 1 and 10. Specifically, the at least one surface of the insulation layer (10) comprises an upper surface (11) and a lower surface (12) of the insulation layer (10), and a part of the conductive layer located on the upper surface (e.g., 30) and the lower surface of the insulation layer (e.g., 40) is partially or entirely connected to the part of the conductive layer (e.g., 50) located on the wall surfaces (20) of the plurality of holes (60), see e.g., Fig. 1. Further regarding claim 2, each of the plurality of holes (60) has an aperture in a range of 0.001 mm to 3 mm (e.g., 0.5 micrometers to 1000 micrometers, see e.g., para. [0063]) and two adjacent holes of the plurality of holes has a spacing in a range of 0.2 mm to 5 mm (e.g., D1 or D2 is 0.1 to 40 mm, see e.g., para. [0046] and Fig. 2). Finally, Ravdel teaches an area ratio of the plurality of holes in the first portion to an entire surface of the conductive layer located on one surface of the insulation layer is 0.1 % to 30 %, but it is unclear what an area ratio of the plurality of holes in the first portion and the second portion is with respect to the total area of the current collector. However, Doi teaches the opening ratio of the through holes is preferably 20 % to 70 % with respect to the total area of the film. When the aperture ratio is less than 20 % the weight reduction is negatively impacted; however, when the aperture ratio exceeds 70 %, the mechanical strength is lowered, see e.g., para. [0017]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust an area ratio of the plurality of holes to an entire surface of the conductive layer located on the one surface of the insulation layer between 0.1 % to 30 %, as claimed, to balance current collector weight and current collector mechanical strength, as suggested by Doi.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,826,072 in view of Ravdel, Doi, Yan (each presented earlier in the Office action). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Both the patent and instant claims include features of a support layer/insulating layer within a specified thickness and transmittance values, and a conductive layer which structurally form an electrode plate and current collector thereof, having an active material thereon, in an electrochemical device (positive electrode, negative electrode and an electrolyte). While the patent does not claim holes in the current collector or protective layers made of aluminum oxide of a specific thickness provided on the conductive layer, such features are obvious in view of Ravdel, Yan and Doi.
With respect to the holes in the current collector, Doi teaches holes formed in a composite current collector is advantageous to form a lighter current collector and allows for anchoring of the active material in the through hole such that good adhesion between the current collector and active material can be economically obtained, see e.g., para. [0017]. Further, Ravdel teaches an insulator 10 having holes therein, with a conductive layer on the surface of the insulator, results in a lighter current collector that improves specific energy and/or specific power, see e.g., para. [0006]. Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to an insulator layer having holes therein and a conductive layer on the surface of the insulator layer to achieve a lighter current collector with improved specific energy and/or specific power and improved active material adhesion by economical means.
With respect to the protective layers, the patent is modified by Ravdel and Yan in the same way as presented in the rejection of claim 1, thereby making obvious the three-layer laminated conductive structure and features thereof, thickness and composition of the protective layers, and the area ratio.
The active layer and holes thereof are obvious over Ravdel as set forth in the prior art rejection, hence not repeated here.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,658,673 in view of Ravdel, Doi, Yan, Kian and Forier (each presented earlier in the Office action). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Both the patent and instant claims include features of an electrochemical device (battery) comprising a positive electrode plate comprising a current collector and active material thereon, negative electrode plate comprising a current collector and an active material thereon and an electrolyte. Further, both require the current collectors to include an insulating layer, a conductive layer within a specified thickness range, and two protective layers on the surface of the conductive layer, such that the thickness of one of the protective layers (facing away from the insulation layer) is greater than the other protective layer (facing toward the insulation layer). The protective layers are made of aluminum oxide.
While the patent does not claim holes in the current collector, such features are obvious in view of Ravdel, Yan, and Doi. The holes were addressed above under the discussion of patent US 10,826,072, thus not repeated here. Similarly, the active layer and holes thereof are obvious over Ravdel as set forth in the prior art rejection, hence not repeated here.
Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the values within the claimed range to satisfy D3 ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3 ≤ 200 nm, D3’ ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3’ ≤ 200 nm, and 0.5D3 ≤ D3’ ≤ 0.8D3, as claimed, for the same reasons detailed under the rejection of claims 1 and 6 above over Yan.
The light transmittance feature is made obvious by Kian and Forier for the same reasons set for in the 103 rejections presented earlier in the Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,714,757 in view of Ravdel, Doi, Yan, Kian and Forier (each presented earlier in the Office action). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Both the patent and instant claims include features of an electrochemical device (battery) comprising a positive electrode plate comprising a current collector and active material thereon, negative electrode plate comprising a current collector and an active material thereon and an electrolyte. Further, both require the current collectors to include an insulating layer, a conductive layer within a specified thickness range, and two protective layers on the surface of the conductive layer, such that the thickness of one of the protective layers is greater than the other protective layer. The protective layers are made of aluminum oxide. The main difference between the patent and instant claims is that the protective layer facing away from the insulation layer is greater than the protective layer facing toward the insulation layer in the instant claims, while the protective layer facing toward the insulation layer is greater than the protective layer facing away from the insulation layer in the patent. However, Yan teaches a composite current collector comprising an insulation layer (1) with a conductive layer (3) on the surface of the insulation layer (1), see e.g., para. [0011] and Fig. 1. The conductive layer (3) includes a first protective layer (4) provided on a surface of the conductive layer (3) facing away from the insulation layer (1), wherein the first protective layer (4) is made of a metal oxide selected from a group consisting aluminum oxide (see e.g., [0038]) and a second protective layer (2) provided on a surface of the conductive layer (3) facing towards the insulation layer (1), wherein the second protective layer (2) is made of metal oxide selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxide, see e.g., para. [0036]. The first protective layer (4) has a thickness D3 (i.e., 10 nm to 100 nm, see e.g., para. [0038]). The second protective layer (2) has a thickness D3’ (i.e., 10 nm to 100 nm, see e.g., para. [0036]). The first protective layer (4) functions to prevent oxidation of the metallic conductive layer (3), while the second protective layer (2) improves bonding of the conductive layer (3) to the insulation layer (1), making it more difficult for the conductive layer (3) to fall off, see e.g., para. [0036, 0038]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05, I. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the values within the claimed range to satisfy D3 ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3 ≤ 200 nm, D3’ ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3’ ≤ 200 nm, and 0.5D3 ≤ D3’ ≤ 0.8D3, as claimed, for the same reasons detailed in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 of this Office action.
Although the “three-layer laminated conductive structure” is not detailed above it is suggested by Ravdel as modified by Yan as described in the rejection of claim 1.
The light transmittance feature is obvious over Kian and Forier for the same reasons provided in the 103 rejections of this Office action.
The active layer and holes thereof are obvious over Ravdel as set forth in the prior art rejection, hence not repeated here.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,184 in view of Ravdel, Doi, Yan, Kian, Forier (each presented earlier in the Office action). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The features of U.S. Patent 10,749,184 not claimed in the instant application are obvious over Ravdel, Yan, and Doi for the same reasons already detailed in this Office action. In short, features of the holes in the current collector are obvious in view of Ravdel, Yan, and Doi, the protective layer locations, materials and thicknesses thereof are obvious in view of Qiu and MPEP 2144.05. The main difference between the patent and instant claims is that the protective layer facing away from the insulation layer is greater than the protective layer facing toward the insulation layer in the instant claims, while the protective layer facing toward the insulation layer is greater than the protective layer facing away from the insulation layer in the patent. However, as set forth already in the double patenting rejection of the claims over 10,714,757 in view of Ravdel, Yan, etc, the aforementioned features are obvious for the same reasons, hence not repeated here. In short, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the values within the claimed range to satisfy D3 ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3 ≤ 200 nm, D3’ ≤ 0.1D2 and 1 nm ≤ D3’ ≤ 200 nm, and 0.5D3 ≤ D3’ ≤ 0.8D3, for the same reasons detailed in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 of this Office action.
Although the “three-layer laminated conductive structure” is not detailed above it is made obvious by Ravdel as modified by Yan as described in the rejection of claim 1.
The light transmittance feature is obvious over Kian and Forier for the same reasons provided in the 103 rejections of this Office action.
The active layer and holes thereof are obvious over Ravde as set forth in the prior art rejection, hence not repeated here.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,910,652. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The features of the patent not claimed in the instant application are obvious over Ravdel, Yan, Doi, Kian and Forier for the same reasons already detailed in this Office action.
In short, features of the holes in the current collector are obvious in view of Ravdel, Yan, and Doi, the protective layer locations, materials and thicknesses thereof are obvious in view of Qiu and MPEP 2144.05. Although the “three-layer laminated conductive structure” is not detailed above it is suggested by Ravdel as modified by Yan as described in the rejection of claim 1. The light transmittance feature is obvious over Kian and Forier for the same reasons provided in the 103 rejections of this Office action. The active layer and holes thereof are obvious over Ravdel as set forth in the prior art rejection, hence not repeated here.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,024,854. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The features of the copending application not claimed in the instant application are obvious over Ravdel, Yan, Doi, Kian and Forier.
Both the patent and instant claims include features of an electrochemical device (battery) comprising a positive electrode plate comprising a current collector and active material thereon, negative electrode plate comprising a current collector and an active material thereon and an electrolyte. Further, both require the current collectors to include an insulating layer, a conductive layer within a specified thickness range, and two protective layers on the surface of the conductive layer made of aluminum oxide and having a specific thickness range. While the patent does not claim holes in the current collector, such features are obvious over Ravdel, Yan, and Doi as discussed earlier in this office action; similarly, the active layer and holes thereof are obvious over Ravdel as set forth in the prior art rejection, hence not repeated here.
Additional features, i.e., three-layer laminated conductive structure, would obvious in view of the prior art as described above. The light transmittance feature is obvious over Kian and Forier for the same reasons provided in the 103 rejections of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights