DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on June 5, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the previous claim objection of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed June 5, 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant submitted a Rule 1.130(a) Declaration to disqualify the prior art reference US 20180301709 A1, because the subject matter disclosed was subject to an obligation of assignment to the Applicant of this application under a development agreement, and the publication date of October 18, 2028, is less than one year before the effective filing date of the present application. Thus, Applicant’s submission of the Rule 1.130(a) Declaration is persuasive in overcoming the previously cited US publication.
However, the newly cited CN publication, CN 106981665 A (Qiu ‘709 – citing to US 20180301709 A1 as an English translation), has a publication date of July 25, 2017, which is more than one year before the effective filing date of the present application.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106981665 A (Qiu ‘709 – citing to US 20180301709 A1 as an English translation) in view of US 20110287322 A1 (Moon ‘322), and further in view of US 20080118830 A1 (Lee ‘830).
Regarding claim 1, Qiu ‘709 teaches a composite current collector (a cathode current collector with a multi-layer structure; [0011]), wherein it (it being the composite current collector) comprises an organic support layer (a plastic film 1; [0011]) and a metal conductive layer (a copper metal layer 3; [0011]) disposed on at least one surface of the organic support layer (the copper metal layer 3 is disposed on at least one surface of the plastic film 1; Fig. 1); and
the composite current collector further comprises a protective layer (an adhesive strength enhancement layer 2 and an antioxidant layer 4; [0011]; plating the adhesive strength enhancement layer 2 can reduce the fall-off of the copper metal layer 3 and prevent the performance of the copper metal layer 3 from being lost; [0013]; the function of the antioxidant layer 4 is to prevent the copper metal layer from being oxidized; [0018]),
the protective layer is disposed on a surface of the metal conductive layer facing toward the organic support layer (see Fig. 1 where the adhesive strength enhancement layer 2 is disposed on a surface of the metal conductive layer facing toward the organic support layer), or on at least one of two opposite surfaces of the metal conductive layer in the thickness direction of the metal conductive layer (see Fig. 1 where the adhesive strength enhancement layer 2 is disposed on one surface of the copper metal layer 3 and the antioxidant layer 4 is disposed on the other surface of the copper metal layer 3); and
PNG
media_image1.png
294
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the protective layer comprises one or more of metals, metal oxides, and conductive carbon (the adhesive strength enhancement layer is a metal plating, wherein the metal is nickel or nickel alloy; [0014]).
Qiu ‘709 further teaches that the thickness of the plastic film 1 is 2-12 µm ([0012]), the thickness of the adhesive strength enhancement layer 2 is 10 to 100 nm ([0016]), the thickness of the copper metal layer is 100 to 1000 nm ([0017]), and the thickness of the antioxidant layer 4 is 10 to 100 nm ([0020]). The plastic film 1 may be polyethylene terephthalate ([0012]).
Moon ‘322 discloses a rechargeable lithium battery including a negative current collector in which an open circuit voltage imperfection is decreased by decreasing brittleness ([0008]). It is understood that the brittleness of the copper foil is very high considering the particle size, the tensile strength, and the elongation ([0026]). The copper foil having high brittleness is heated to decrease the brittleness and then applied to a negative current collector ([0027]). The copper foil may have a tensile strength of about 300 MPa to about 350 MPa ([0032]). When the copper foil has tensile strength within the range, shards of copper foil are rarely scattered, and the peripheral cutting area is rarely plastically deformed ([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 copper metal layer to be made of a copper material having a tensile strength of about 300 MPa to about 350 MPa, in seeking to provide a copper metal layer with decreased brittleness, as suggested by Moon ‘322, in the composite current collector, as taught by Qiu ‘709.
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 modified Qiu ‘709, 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.
While modified Qiu ‘709 does not specifically disclose that the composite current collector has a brittleness parameter C of 0.01 ≤ C ≤ 0.5, the brittleness parameter C is considered a result effective variable.
As defined in [0026] of the presently filed 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.
Moon ‘322 discloses a copper material with decreased brittleness having a tensile strength of 300 MPa to about 350 MPa, as discussed above. 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. The thicknesses of the of the cathode current collector having a multi-layer structure in Qiu ‘709 overlap with the claimed thicknesses in the dependent claims below. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the brittle parameter C of the claimed invention is result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the composite current collector has a brittleness parameter C of 0.1 ≤ C ≤ 0.3, because the brittleness parameter is considered a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer has a tensile strength T1 of 150 MPa ≤ T1 ≤ 500 MPa (the copper foil may have a tensile strength of about 300 MPa to about 350 MPa; [0032] of Moon ‘322) and the organic support layer has a tensile strength T2 of 100 MPa ≤ T2 ≤ 400 MPa (the plastic film 1 may be polyethylene terephthalate; [0012] of Qiu ‘709; polyethylene terephthalate has a tensile strength of about 100 to 200 MPa; [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 4, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the 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 ‘709; 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 5, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer has a thickness D1 of 30 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 3 µm (the thickness of the copper metal layer is 100 to 1000 nm (1 µm); [0017] of Qiu ‘709); and the organic support layer has a thickness D2 of 1 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 30 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 1 is 2-12 µm; [0012] of Qiu ‘709).
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, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer comprises one of copper or copper alloy (a copper metal layer 3; [0011] of Qiu ‘709).
Regarding claim 8, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the protective layer comprises one or more of nickel or nickel alloy (the adhesive strength enhancement layer 2 is metal plating, wherein the metal is nickel or nickel alloy; [0014] of Qiu ‘709; like the adhesive strength enhancement layer 2, the antioxidant layer 4 also uses the nickel alloy metal plating; [0019] of Qiu ‘709).
Regarding claim 11, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer has a tensile strength T1 of 200 MPa ≤ T1 ≤ 350 MPa (the copper foil may have a tensile strength of about 300 MPa to about 350 MPa; [0032] of Moon ‘322) and the organic support layer has a tensile strength T2 of 150 MPa ≤ T2 ≤ 300 MPa (the plastic film 1 may be polyethylene terephthalate; [0012] of Qiu ‘709; polyethylene terephthalate has a tensile strength of about 100 to 200 MPa; [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 12, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the 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 1 may be polyethylene terephthalate; [0012] of Qiu ‘709; 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 13, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer has a thickness D1 of 300 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 2 µm (the thickness of the copper metal layer is 100 to 1000 nm (1 µm); [0017] of Qiu ‘709); and the organic support layer has a thickness D2 of 1 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 20 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 1 is 2-12 µm; [0012] of Qiu ‘709).
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 14, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer has a thickness D1 of 500 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 1.5 µm (the thickness of the copper metal layer is 100 to 1000 nm (1 µm); [0017] of Qiu ‘709); and the organic support layer has a thickness D2 of 1 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 15 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 1 is 2-12 µm; [0012] of Qiu ‘709).
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 15, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the metal conductive layer has a thickness D1 of 800 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 1.2 µm (the thickness of the copper metal layer is 100 to 1000 nm (1 µm); [0017] of Qiu ‘709); and the organic support layer has a thickness D2 of 2 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 6 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 1 is 2-12 µm; [0012] of Qiu ‘709).
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 16, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the organic support layer has a thickness D2 of 2 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 10 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 1 is 2-12 µm; [0012] of Qiu ‘709).
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 17, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the organic support layer has a thickness D2 of 2 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 8 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 1 is 2-12 µm; [0012] of Qiu ‘709).
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, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the protective layer has a thickness D3 of 1 nm ≤ D3 ≤ 200 nm (the thickness of the adhesive strength enhancement layer 2 is 10 to 100 nm ([0016]), the thickness of the copper metal layer is 100 to 1000 nm ([0017]), and the thickness of the antioxidant layer 4 is 10 to 100 nm ([0020]); Qiu ‘709), and the thickness D3 of the protective layer and the thickness D1 of the metal conductive layer satisfies: D3 ≤ 0.1 D1 (when, for example, D1 is 1000 nm and D3 is 10 nm, the relationship of D3 ≤ 0.1 D1 is satisfied, because 10 nm ≤ 100 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)).
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106981665 A (Qiu ‘709 – citing to US 20180301709 A1 as an English translation) in view of US 20110287322 A1 (Moon ‘322) and US 20080118830 A1 (Lee ‘830), and further in view of US 20050221190 A1 (Sudano ‘190).
Regarding claim 7, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the 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 (the plastic film 1 may be polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate; [0012] of Qiu ‘709).
However, modified Qiu ‘709 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]).
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 composite current collector, as taught by modified Qiu ‘709.
Regarding claim 9, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches the composite current collector according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above; the cathode current collector is used in the lithium-ion battery wherein the cathode electrode materials (battery active substance) generate current and collect the generated current for form large current; [0031] of Qiu ‘709), but does not specifically disclose an electrode plate, comprising a current collector and an active material disposed on the current collector.
Sudano ‘190 a one thin-film electrochemical cell comprises at least one thin-film solid electrolyte disposed between a film constituting an anode and a film constituting a cathode, and a current collector associated with one of the anode and the cathode ([0009]). Additionally, 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 protective layer is electronically conductive to allow movement of electrons between the electrode active material and the conductive metallic layer of the current collector ([0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, for the composite current collector, as taught by modified Qiu ‘709, to be part of an electrode plate having an active material disposed on the current collector, wherein movement of electrons occurs between the electrode active material and the conductive metallic layer of the current collector, as suggested by Sudano ‘190.
Regarding claim 10, modified Qiu ‘709 teaches an electrochemical device (a thin-film electrochemical cell; [0009] of Sudano ‘190), comprising a positive electrode plate (a cathode; [0009] of Sudano ‘190), a negative electrode plate (an anode; [0009] of Sudano ‘190), and an electrolyte (a thin-film solid electrolyte; [0009] of Sudano ‘190), wherein the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate is the electrode plate according to claim 9 (see claim 9 above where the electrode plate includes the composite current collector according to claim 1 in view of modified Qiu ‘709).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, MATTHEW T MARTIN can be reached on 571-270-7871. 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 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728