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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment received 03/23/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 29 to add additional limitations. The newly added limitation was reviewed, and is considered a product by process limitation, and is rejected accordingly and noted below. No other amendments have been made.
The rejection has been updated below to reject the newly added limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 29-30 and 49-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140335410A1 (Loveridge) further in view of US20150318555A1 (Oku)
Regarding claim 29, Loveridge teaches a composite electrode material for a rechargeable battery [abs]. Loveridge teaches a current collector includes a carbon, copper foil and includes a conducting polymer and other conductive materials which can be on both sides [0131; which reads on a device comprising at least one carbon and a polymer], the device comprising: an electrolyte [0135] and the carbon substrate is of a mean weight per area in a range of 1 to 4 mg/cm2 [0131]. Loveridge does not explicitly teach a first current collector having a resistivity in a range between 3-5 mohm/sq, said current collector comprising at least one polymer-impregnated carbon nanotube (CNT) substrate, the tensile strength as required by the instant claim and wherein each said polymer skin is adapted to prevent contact between the electrolyte and the carbon nanotubes (CNT); and a conducting metallic element attached to said at least one substrate. In a similar field of endeavor, Oku teaches a current collector for a battery [abs] and teaches the current collector includes: a layer (1) formed from an electrically conductive material [corresponding to the claimed a conducting metallic element attached to said at least one substrate] and at least one of (a) a polymer compound having an alicyclic structure [corresponding to the claimed - three-dimensional (3D) carbon nanotube (CNT) substrate comprising a polymer skin on both faces thereof], (b) a saturated hydrocarbon polymer compound having a hydroxyl group, (c) a phenoxy resin and an epoxy resin, and (d) an amine having an amine equivalent of 120 g/eq or less and an epoxy resin; a layer (2) which is formed on at least one surface of the layer (1); and a layer (3) formed from an electrically conductive material. It further teaches that the current collector can be a carbon nanotube [0117; which reads on the claimed three-dimensional (3D) carbon nanotube (CNT) substrate comprising a polymer skin; 0211-0212; which reads on the carbon substrate having the polymer coating] It is noted, the 3D carbon nanotube is formed using polymer dispersed on the carbon nanotubes. Therefore, Loveridge in view of Oku teach the required structure of a polymer impregnated 3D CNT, as Loverridge teaches the current collector is made of a carbon nanotube substrate and Oku teaches that the CNT is layered with a polymer coating, which forms the 3D CNT substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Loveridge in view of Oku as Oku teaches the current collector which includes the metallic and polymer layers as taught above, as it provides a battery with stability to an equilibrium potential environment in a negative electrode, a low electric resistance, a blocking property to solvent in electrolytic solution, and a blocking property to a component in an electrolyte [abs; 0119]. In addition, the current collector for a battery has a high capacity retention rate, and battery durability is improved.
Further, it is the Examiner’s position, since Loveridge in view of Oku teaches substantially the same structure as disclosed by Applicant [i.e. current collector comprising one polymer impregnated CNT with the claimed mean weight per area of 1-4mg/cm2], the property with the claimed resistivity in a range between 3-5 mohm/sq, and a tensile strength of more than 200 MPa, is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. MPEP2112.
In regards to the newly added claimed recitation, “wherein a polymer is impregnated into a CNT mat void space, wherein the CNT mat is rolled thereby squeezing the polymer, and wherein a solvent carrying the impregnated polymer is evaporated” this is considered a product by process limitation, therefore is not given patentable weight. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Loveridge in view of Oku teach the required structure of claim 29, i.e. the 3D CNT substrate, electrolyte, current collector and has been rejected accordingly. The process of how the impregnation occurs, i.e. impregnating process, rolling and squeezing and evaporated is not given patentable weight, as the claims are directed to the apparatus and the prior art as cited teaches the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 30, Loveridge teaches a device selected from the group consisting of an electrochemical synthesis cell, an EMI (electromagnetic interference) shielding device or apparatus, a heating element and a lightning strike protection element [abs,0003].
Regarding claim 49, Loveridge teaches wherein said polymer comprises at least one thermoplastic organic polymer [0017; 0041-0045, the electrode material used to coat the current collector contains binders, i.e PVDF, PVA].
Regarding claim 50, Loverbridge teaches wherein said at least one thermoplastic organic polymer is selected from the group consisting of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (NaCMC), polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF), Poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and combinations thereof [0017, 0040-0045].
Regarding claim 51, Loveridge teaches the device further comprising at least one tab [abs; i.e. electrode; entire document].
Regarding claim 52, Loveridge teaches the copper foil comprises perforations [0125; the current collector is made up composite electrode materials, which is porous and has voids].
Regarding claim 55, Loveridge teaches said perforated copper foil is of a thickness of 8 to 20 microns [0131].
Regarding claim 53, modified Loveridge teaches a polymer impregnated CNT substrate [claim 29], however is silent in regards to a two polymer- impregnated carbon nanotube (CNT) substrates. However, this is considered a mere duplication of parts. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Modified Loveridge teaches the device to have a polymer impregnated carbon nanotube substrate [please refer to claim 29], thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and incorporate two substrates as claimed as one would expect a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 54, Loveridge in view of Oku teaches wherein said perforated copper foil is disposed in between said two polymer-impregnated carbon nanotube (CNT) substrates [please refer to claim 29 and claim 53] [Loveridge teaches in 0131- Current collectors can be coated with the composite electrode material on one side or can be coated with the composite electrode material on both sides. And Oku teaches the carbon nanotube substrate 0117].
Regarding claim 56, Loveridge nor Oku teaches wherein the perforated copper foil comprises unperforated margins. However, it is the examiners position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the copper foil such that there are no voids or perforations on the margins as to prevent the electrolyte does not pass thru. Oku teaches that it is also possible to make a condition in which the electrolyte is difficult to penetrate into voids of the current collector by subjecting the surface of the electrically conductive carbon particles 2 to a hydrophobic treatment to reduce the conformability of the electrolyte [0161]. Therefore, one skilled in the art would be able to modify the structure such that the perforated copper foil comprises unperforated margins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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 on 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights