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 .
This office action addresses pending claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-19. Claim 1 was amended in the response filed 12/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the lower protective layer comprises one or more metals, metal oxides, and conductive carbon” in lines 2-3. However, this limitation is broader than the limitation of the independent claim regarding the material of the lower protective layer (“the lower protective layer is made of nickel oxide”, and therefore does not include all the limitations of the parent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,658,673 in view of either Lee et al. (US 2008/0118830) or Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111294).
The conflicting patent claims disclose a battery comprising a positive current collector comprising an insulation layer [polymer material-based support layer] with an overlapping thickness of 2 µm-10 µm (claim 7), a conductive layer that can be aluminum (claim 2) with an overlapping thickness of 300 nm-2 µm, a first protective layer [lower protective layer] between the insulation layer and conductive layer that is nickel oxide (claim 1), and a second protective layer [upper protective layer] (claims 1). The insulation layer can be made of polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (claim 11). The first and second protective layers have an overlapping range with the claimed amounts (claims 3 and 8).
While the polymer-based support film of the conflicting patent (PET or PI) inherently has a tensile strength, the conflicting patent claims does not explicitly disclose values of the tensile strength of the polymer-based support film (T) [the tensile strength T of the support layer being 200 MPa ≤ T ≤ 300 MPa].
Lee discloses polyethyleneterephthalate has a tensile strength of about 150 to 200 MPa (MD) and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (MD) (Young’s modulus) ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either to use a PET of a tensile strength of about 100-200 MPa as taught by Lee with the polymer (including PET) of the conflicting patent for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Alternatively, Lopez teaches that the tensile strength of polyimide is between 150-300 MPa (see second table in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyimide (PI) of a tensile strength of about 150-300 MPa (including in the range of 200-300 MPa) as taught by Lopez with the PI of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-19 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 either Lee et al. (US 2008/0118830) or Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111294).
The conflicting patent claims disclose a current collector comprising an insulation layer [polymer material-based support layer] with an overlapping thickness of 1 µm-20 µm (claim 4), a conductive layer that can be aluminum (claim 3) with an overlapping thickness of 300 nm-2 µm, a first protective layer [lower protective layer] between the insulation layer and conductive layer that is nickel oxide, and a second protective layer [upper protective layer] (claims 1, 8, 14). The insulation layer can be made of polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (claims 4, 11). The first and second protective layers have an overlapping range with the claimed amounts (claims 1, 7-8, 14, and 20).
While the polymer-based support film of the conflicting patent (PET or PI) inherently has a tensile strength, the conflicting patent claims does not explicitly disclose values of the tensile strength of the polymer-based support film (T) [the tensile strength T of the support layer being 200 MPa ≤ T ≤ 300 MPa].
Lee discloses polyethyleneterephthalate has a tensile strength of about 150 to 200 MPa (MD) and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (MD) (Young’s modulus) ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either to use a PET of a tensile strength of about 100-200 MPa as taught by Lee with the polymer (including PET) of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Alternatively, Lopez teaches that the tensile strength of polyimide is between 150-300 MPa (see second table in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyimide (PI) of a tensile strength of about 150-300 MPa (including in the range of 200-300 MPa) as taught by Lopez with the PI of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,184 in view of either Lee et al. (US 2008/0118830) or Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111294).
The conflicting patent claims disclose a battery comprising a positive current collector comprising an insulation layer [polymer material-based support layer] with an overlapping thickness of 1 µm-20 µm (claim 7, 11, 12), a conductive layer that can be aluminum (claim 2) with an overlapping thickness of 300 nm-2 µm, a first protective layer [lower protective layer] between the insulation layer and conductive layer that is nickel oxide (claim 1), and a second protective layer [upper protective layer] (claims 1). The insulation layer can be made of polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (claim 11). The first and second protective layers have an overlapping range with the claimed amounts (claims 1, 3, 10).
While the polymer-based support film of the conflicting patent (PET or PI) inherently has a tensile strength, the conflicting patent claims does not explicitly disclose values of the tensile strength of the polymer-based support film (T) [the tensile strength T of the support layer being 200 MPa ≤ T ≤ 300 MPa].
Lee discloses polyethyleneterephthalate has a tensile strength of about 150 to 200 MPa (MD) and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (MD) (Young’s modulus) ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either to use a PET of a tensile strength of about 100-200 MPa as taught by Lee with the polymer (including PET) of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Alternatively, Lopez teaches that the tensile strength of polyimide is between 150-300 MPa (see second table in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyimide (PI) of a tensile strength of about 150-300 MPa (including in the range of 200-300 MPa) as taught by Lopez with the PI of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,763,513 in view of either Lee et al. (US 2008/0118830) or Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111294).
The conflicting patent claims discloses a current collector comprising an insulation layer [polymer material-based support layer] with an overlapping thickness of 1 µm-20 µm (claim 4), a conductive layer that can be aluminum (claim 3) with an overlapping thickness of 300 nm-2 µm, a first protective layer [lower protective layer] between the insulation layer and conductive layer that is nickel oxide (claim 1, 13), and a second protective layer [upper protective layer] (claims 1, 11). The insulation layer can be made of polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (claim 5). The first and second protective layers have an overlapping range with the claimed amounts (claims 1, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 19-20).
While the polymer-based support film of the conflicting patent (PET or PI) inherently has a tensile strength, the conflicting patent does not explicitly disclose values of the tensile strength of the polymer-based support film (T) [the tensile strength T of the support layer being 200 MPa ≤ T ≤ 300 MPa].
Lee discloses polyethyleneterephthalate has a tensile strength of about 150 to 200 MPa (MD) and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (MD) (Young’s modulus) ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either to use a PET of a tensile strength of about 100-200 MPa as taught by Lee with the polymer (including PET) of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Alternatively, Lopez teaches that the tensile strength of polyimide is between 150-300 MPa (see second table in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyimide (PI) of a tensile strength of about 150-300 MPa (including in the range of 200-300 MPa) as taught by Lopez with the PI of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,611,081 in view of Sudano et al. (US 2004/0126663) and either Lee et al. (US 2008/0118830) or Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111294).
The conflicting patent claims discloses a battery comprising a positive current collector that is a composite collector that comprises a polymer based support layer with an overlapping thickness of 1 µm-15 µm (claim 1), a conductive layer has an overlapping thickness of 300 nm-2 µm (claim 1), a first protective layer [lower protective layer] between the insulation layer and conductive layer that is nickel oxide (claim 7), and a second protective layer [upper protective layer] (claims 1). The insulation layer can be made of polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (claim 1). The first and second protective layers have an overlapping range with the claimed amounts (claims 1, 3, 10).
The conflicting patent claims do not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive layer is aluminum.
Sudano discloses a current collector for an electrochemical cell (abstract). The current collector comprise a polymer substrate support film 42 (polymer material-based support layer) having a thickness between 1 and 15 microns, and a conductive metallic layer 44, 52, 56 having a thickness of less than 3 microns, coated by metal vapor deposition onto at least one surface of the polymer substrate film (abstract). A protective metal or metal oxide layer 46, 54, 58 is deposited onto the conductive metallic layer and has a thickness between 5-500 nm (abstract). The coating can be on one side or one both sides of the polymer substrate (Figs 2-3). The conductive metallic layer can include aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), nickel (Ni), tin (Sn) or alloys, but preferred metals are aluminum and copper for their low cost and good conductivity ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an aluminum metal as the conductive metal as taught by Sudano as the conductive material of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of using a suitable conductive material.
While the polymer-based support film of the conflicting patent (PET or PI) inherently has a tensile strength, the conflicting patent claims does not explicitly disclose values of the tensile strength of the polymer-based support film (T) [the tensile strength T of the support layer being 200 MPa ≤ T ≤ 300 MPa].
Lee discloses polyethyleneterephthalate has a tensile strength of about 150 to 200 MPa (MD) and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (MD) (Young’s modulus) ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either to use a PET of a tensile strength of about 100-200 MPa as taught by Lee with the polymer (including PET) of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Alternatively, Lopez teaches that the tensile strength of polyimide is between 150-300 MPa (see second table in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyimide (PI) of a tensile strength of about 150-300 MPa (including in the range of 200-300 MPa) as taught by Lopez with the PI of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,646,424 in view of Sudano et al. (US 2004/0126663) and either Lee et al. (US 2008/0118830) or Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111294).
The conflicting patent claims discloses a battery comprising a positive current collector that is a composite collector that comprises a polymer based support layer with an overlapping thickness of 1 µm-30 µm (claim 1), a conductive layer has an overlapping thickness of 300 nm-2 µm (claim 1), a protective layer [lower protective layer] between the insulation layer and conductive layer that is nickel oxide (claim 15-16), and protective layers (claim 1). The insulation layer can be made of polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (claim 13). The first and second protective layers have an overlapping range with the claimed amounts (claims 17).
The conflicting patent claims do not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive layer is aluminum.
Sudano discloses a current collector for an electrochemical cell (abstract). The current collector comprise a polymer substrate support film 42 (polymer material-based support layer) having a thickness between 1 and 15 microns, and a conductive metallic layer 44, 52, 56 having a thickness of less than 3 microns, coated by metal vapor deposition onto at least one surface of the polymer substrate film (abstract). A protective metal or metal oxide layer 46, 54, 58 is deposited onto the conductive metallic layer and has a thickness between 5-500 nm (abstract). The coating can be on one side or one both sides of the polymer substrate (Figs 2-3). The conductive metallic layer can include aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), nickel (Ni), tin (Sn) or alloys, but preferred metals are aluminum and copper for their low cost and good conductivity ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an aluminum metal as the conductive metal as taught by Sudano as the conductive material of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of using a suitable conductive material.
While the polymer-based support film of the conflicting patent (PET or PI) inherently has a tensile strength, the conflicting patent claims does not explicitly disclose values of the tensile strength of the polymer-based support film (T) [the tensile strength T of the support layer being 200 MPa ≤ T ≤ 300 MPa].
Lee discloses polyethyleneterephthalate has a tensile strength of about 150 to 200 MPa (MD) and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (MD) (Young’s modulus) ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either to use a PET of a tensile strength of about 100-200 MPa as taught by Lee with the polymer (including PET) of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Alternatively, Lopez teaches that the tensile strength of polyimide is between 150-300 MPa (see second table in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyimide (PI) of a tensile strength of about 150-300 MPa (including in the range of 200-300 MPa) as taught by Lopez with the PI of the conflicting patent claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-16, and 20-22 of copending Application No. 17/112766 [published as US 2021/0119196, and soon to be U.S. Patent No 12,512,452] in view of either Lee et al. (US 2008/0118830) or Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111294).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The conflicting claims discloses an electrode plate comprising a current collector, wherein the current collector comprising a support layer [polymer material-based support layer], two conductive layers made of aluminum, an upper protective layer and a lower protective layer respectively disposed on two opposite surfaces of each one of the two conductive layers and can be made of nickel oxide (claim 1) with an overlapping thickness of 300nm-2µm (claim 5). The insulation layer can be made of polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (claim 2), with a thickness of 1-30 µm (claims 3-4).
The conflicting claims do not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive layer is aluminum.
While the polymer-based support film of the conflicting patent (PET or PI) inherently has a tensile strength, the conflicting patent does not explicitly disclose values of the tensile strength of the polymer-based support film (T) [the tensile strength T of the support layer being 200 MPa ≤ T ≤ 300 MPa].
Lee discloses polyethyleneterephthalate has a tensile strength of about 150 to 200 MPa (MD) and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (MD) (Young’s modulus) ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention either to use a PET of a tensile strength of about 100-200 MPa as taught by Lee with the polymer (including PET) of the conflicting claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Alternatively, Lopez teaches that the tensile strength of polyimide is between 150-300 MPa (see second table in [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polyimide (PI) of a tensile strength of about 150-300 MPa (including in the range of 200-300 MPa) as taught by Lopez with the PI of the conflicting claims for the purpose of serving to enhance the mechanical strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725