DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 28, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, and 18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the claimed brittleness parameter C, because formula 1 is now included in the body of claim 1.
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 10 and 18 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 10 recites “wherein the positive electrode plate and/or the negative electrode plate are/is the electrode plate according to claim 9.” Claim 10 is indefinite, because claim 9 recites “An electrode plate, comprising a current collector…wherein the current collector is the positive electrode composite current collector according to claim 1.” Thus, claim 10 should instead recite “wherein the positive electrode plate is the electrode plate according to claim 9.”
Claim 18 recites “a thickness D3 of the protective layer”. However, claim 1 recites “the protective layer…the upper protective layer has a thickness of 10 to 50 nm and the lower protective layer has a thickness of 8 to 30 nm”. It is unclear whether the thickness D3 of claim 18 refers to the thickness of the upper protective layer between 10 to 50 nm, the thickness of the lower protective layer between 8 to 30 nm, or both. Therefore, the thickness limitation D3 of the protective layer in claim 18 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107154499 A (Qiu ‘499 – with a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) publication date of September 12, 2017 – citing to the attached English translation) in view of CN 101546684 A (Guo ‘684 – citing to the attached English translation) and US 20170009360 A1 (Schuh ‘360), and further in view of US 20080118830 A1 (Lee ‘830).
Regarding claim 1, Qiu ‘499 teaches a positive electrode composite current collector (a positive electrode current collector 10; [0034]), comprising an organic support layer (a plastic film 11; [0034]; wherein the plastic film 11 is preferably, for example, polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate; [0038]; which corresponds to the organic support layer comprising one or more polymer materials such as polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate; [00166] of the present specification) and a metal conductive layer (aluminum metal coating layer 13; [0034]) disposed on at least one surface of the organic support layer (the aluminum metal coating layer 13 is disposed on at least one surface of the plastic film 11; Fig. 1); and
the metal conductive layer comprises one or more of aluminum, aluminum alloy (aluminum metal coating layer 13; [0034]),
the metal conductive layer has a thickness D1 of 800 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 2000 nm (the thickness of the aluminum metal coating layer 13 can be 100 to 2000 nm; [0040]),
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
the organic support layer has a thickness D2 of 2 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 5 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 11 is preferably 2 to 12 µm; [0038]),
PNG
media_image1.png
330
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the positive electrode composite current collector further comprises a protective layer (the plastic film 11 has a first adhesion enhancement layer 12, an aluminum metal coating layer 13, and a first anti-oxidation layer 14 sequentially deposited on the upper and lower surfaces of the plastic film 11; [0034] & Fig. 1; applying a first adhesion enhancement layer 12 can reduce the peeling of the aluminum metal coating; [0039]),
the protective layer is disposed on a surface of the metal conductive layer facing toward the organic support layer, referred to as a lower protective layer (see Fig. 1 where the lower first adhesion enhancement layer 12, below the plastic film 11, is disposed on a surface of the lower aluminum metal coating layer 13), and the protective layer is disposed on a surface of the metal conductive layer facing away from the organic support layer, referred to as an upper protective layer (see Fig. 1 where the upper first adhesion enhancement layer 12, above the plastic film 11, is disposed on a surface of the upper aluminum metal coating layer 13); and
the upper protective layer has a thickness of 10 to 50 nm (the thickness of the upper first adhesion enhancement layer 12 is 10 to 100 nm; [0014] & [0039] of Qiu ‘499) and the lower protective layer has a thickness of 8 to 30 nm (the thickness of lower first adhesion enhancement layer 12 is 10 to 100 nm; [0014] & [0039] of Qiu ‘499).
Qiu ‘499 discloses that the adhesion enhancement layer 12 comprises nickel ([0053]). However, Qiu ‘499 does not disclose that the lower protective layer and the upper protective layer are made of nickel oxide.
Guo ‘684 discloses a composite thin film electrode including a substrate on which a transition layer, a conductive layer, and a protective layer are disposed ([0020]). The metal material of the protective layer may be a nickel oxide ([0024]). The protective layer is 10 nm to 1000 nm in thickness ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select nickel oxide as the material of the protective layer, as suggested by Guo ‘684, in the positive electrode composite current collector, as taught by Qiu ‘499, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Qiu ‘499 does not disclose that the aluminum metal coating layer 13 has a tensile strength T1 of 200 MPa.
Schuh ‘360 discloses that an electrodeposited aluminum alloy may have a tensile strength between about 150 MPa and 1750 MPa, or any other appropriate tensile strength to have a sufficient intrinsic strength such that it is able to support the mechanical forces applied to current collectors ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the aluminum metal coating layer 13 to have a tensile strength of 200 MPa, in seeking to provide a metal conductive layer having sufficient intrinsic strength, as suggested by Schuh ‘360, in the positive electrode composite current collector, as taught by Qiu ‘499.
Qiu ‘499 discloses that the plastic film 11, corresponding to the organic support layer, has a stronger tensile strength ([0071]), but does not disclose specifically disclose a tensile strength T2 of 200 MPa ≤ T2 ≤ 300 MPa.
Lee ‘830 discloses a combined film battery package and current collector 300 that includes a multi-layer polymer film 102 and a conductive layer 310 disposed on a surface of the multi-layered polymer film 102 ([0048] & Fig. 3). The third polymer film 130 is made of a polymer film having a tensile strength of at least 100 MPa and a tensile modulus of at least 3000 MPa ([0031]). For example, the third polymer film 130 may be made of polyethylene terephthalate or polybutylene terephthalate ([0031]). Polyethylene terephthalate has a tensile strength of about 100 to 200 MPa and a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa ([0031]). The third polymer film 130 serves to enhance the mechanical strength of the multi-layer polymer film 102 ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the plastic film of the composite current collector, as taught by Qiu ‘499, to be made of polyethylene terephthalate having a tensile strength of about 100 to 200 MPa, to enhance the mechanical strength of the plastic film, as suggested by Lee ‘830.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
While Qiu ‘499 does not specifically disclose that the positive electrode composite current collector has a brittleness parameter C of 0.2 ≤ C ≤ 0.5, the brittleness parameter C of the positive electrode composite current collector is obtained according to formula 1, the brittleness parameter C is met by the parameters cited to in the prior art.
As defined in [0026] of the present specification, the brittleness parameter C of the composite collector is obtained by formula 1 related to the tensile strength (T1) of the metal conductive layer 102, the thickness (D1) of the metal conductive layer, the tensile strength (T2) of the organic support layer 101, and the thickness (D2) of the organic support layer 101.
C = (T1 x D1) / (T2 x D2)
When T1 is 200 MPa, D1 800 nm, T2 is 200 MPa, and D2 is 2000 nm, C is equal to 0.4, which is within the claimed range of the brittleness parameter C in claim 1.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
All of the claimed parameters in claim 1 are taught or rendered obvious by the cited prior art. Qiu ‘499 discloses the multi-layer structure of the positive electrode composite current collector with thickness dimensions that overlap with the claimed thicknesses, along with the claimed materials. Schuh ‘360 discloses that an electrodeposited aluminum alloy may have a tensile strength between about 150 MPa and 1750 MPa, for example 200 MPa, or any other appropriate tensile strength to have a sufficient intrinsic strength such that it is able to support the mechanical forces applied to current collectors ([0026]). Lee ‘830 discloses selecting polyethylene terephthalate having a tensile strength of about 100 to 200 MPa as part of a polymer film to enhance mechanical strength ([0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Qiu ‘499 teaches the positive electrode composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the organic support layer has a Young’s modulus E of E ≥ 2 GPa (the plastic film 1 may be polyethylene terephthalate; [0012] of Qiu ‘499; polyethylene terephthalate has a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (4 to 5 GPa); [0031] of Lee ‘830).
Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 6, Qiu ‘499 teaches the positive electrode composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer is a vapor deposited layer or an electroplated layer (the aluminum metal coating layer 13 is placed in the vacuum chamber of a double-sides reciprocating electron beam evaporation coating machine; [0045] of Qiu ‘499).
Regarding claim 9, Qiu ‘499 teaches an electrode plate (a positive electrode plate 1; [0035] of Qui ‘499), comprising a current collector and an active material layer disposed on the current collector (the positive electrode plate 1 is composed of the positive electrode current collector 10 and the positive electrode active material 15 coated on the positive electrode current collector 10; [0035] of Qiu ‘499), wherein the current collector is the positive electrode composite current collector according to claim 1 (positive electrode current collector 10; [0035] of Qiu ‘499; see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Qiu ‘499 teaches an electrochemical device (a lithium battery; [0060] of Qiu ‘499), comprising a positive electrode plate (a positive electrode plate 1; [0035] of Qui ‘499), a negative electrode plate (a negative electrode plate 2; [0036] of Qiu ‘499), and an electrolyte (injected with an electrolyte; [0063] of Qiu ‘499), wherein the positive electrode plate is the electrode plate according to claim 9 (the lithium battery containing the novel current collector (positive electrode current collector 10); [0060] of Qiu ‘499; see claim 9 and claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Qiu ‘499 teaches the positive electrode composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the organic support layer has a Young’s modulus E of 2 GPa ≤ E ≤ 20 GPa (the plastic film 11 is preferably, for example, polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate; [0038] of Qiu ‘499; polyethylene terephthalate has a tensile modulus of about 4000 to 5000 MPa (4 to 5 GPa); [0031] of Lee ‘830).
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 18, Qiu ‘499 teaches the positive electrode composite current collector of claim 1, wherein a thickness D3 of the protective layer and the thickness D1 of the metal conductive layer satisfies: D3 ≤ 0.1 D1 (the thickness D3 of the first adhesion enhancement layer 12 is 10 to 100 nm; [0039] of Qiu ‘499; the thickness D1 of the aluminum metal coating layer 13 can be 100 to 2000 nm; [0040] of Qiu ‘499; when, for example, D1 is 800 nm and D3 is 10 nm, the relationship of D3 ≤ 0.1 D1 is satisfied, because 10 nm ≤ 80 nm).
Further, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107154499 A (Qiu ‘499 – with a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) publication date of September 12, 2017 – citing to the attached English translation) in view of CN 101546684 A (Guo ‘684 – citing to the attached English translation), US 20170009360 A1 (Schuh ‘360), and US 20080118830 A1 (Lee ‘830), and further in view of US 20050221190 A1 (Sudano ‘190).
Regarding claim 7, Qiu ‘499 teaches the positive electrode composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the organic support layer comprises one or more of polymer materials and polymer based composite materials; the polymer materials are one of polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate (a plastic film 11; [0034]; wherein the plastic film 11 is preferably, for example, polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate; [0038] of Qiu ‘499).
However, Qiu ‘499 does not specifically disclose that the polymer-based composite materials comprise the polymer material and an additive, and the additive comprises one or more of metallic materials and inorganic non-metallic materials.
Sudano ‘190 discloses a current collector 40 comprising a polymer support film 42, a conductive metallic layer 44, and a protective layer 46 ([0034]). The polymer support film is selected for its relative thinness, its tensile strength, its low elongation, its ability to be metallized, and its stability over time ([0023]). Polymer support films exhibiting acceptable properties include polyethylene terephthalate ([0023]). Such polymer support films are readily available on the market in thickness ranging from 2 microns to 12 microns ([0023]). To further increase the conductivity of the current collector, a conductive polymer support film may be used ([0036]). A conductive polymer support film refers to any polymer support film which has been doped with a sufficient amount of a conductive material, so as to be conductive, and therefore, increase the overall conductivity of the current collector ([0036]). Such conductive materials include, by way of example, carbon powder, graphite, powdered nickel, metal particles, and the like ([0036]). A current collector can also be associated with either one of the electrodes, especially the cathode ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the polymer-based composite material of the organic support layer comprises the polymer material and an additive, wherein the additive comprises one or more of metallic materials and inorganic non-metallic materials, as suggested by Sudano ‘190, in the positive electrode composite current collector, as taught by Qiu ‘499.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed on July 28, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant asserts that none of the references disclose or teach all of the technical features of independent claim 1. However, Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive in view of the rejection of record presented in this Office Action. Further, Applicant’s assertion regarding unanticipated or unexpected results is unpersuasive, because all of the technical features of independent claim 1 are disclosed or taught by the cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2019216184 A (Ono ‘184 – citing to the attached English translation) discloses a nickel oxide protective layer ([0018]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 on 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights