DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on March 23, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12, and 18 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections of record.
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 1, 4, 6-10, 12, 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.
The claimed brittleness parameter C in claim 1 of “0.033 ≤ C ≤ 0.05” is not commensurate in scope with the claimed thickness and tensile strength parameters in claim 1.
For example, when T1 is 200 MPa, D1 500 nm, T2 is 200 MPa, and D2 is 6000 nm, C is equal to 0.083. C being equal to 0.083 is outside of the scope of the claimed brittleness parameter C in claim 1, because 0.083 is greater than 0.05.
When T1 is 200 MPa, D1 300 nm, T2 is 300 MPa, and D2 is 10000 nm, C is equal to 0.02. C being equal to 0.02 is outside of the scope of the claimed brittleness parameter C in claim 1, because 0.02 is less than 0.05.
Accordingly, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 4, 6-10, 12, and 18 depend from a rejected base claim, and thus, are also rejected.
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, 8, 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 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 300 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 500 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 6 µm ≤ D2 ≤ 10 µm (the thickness of the plastic film 11 is preferably 6 to 10 µm; [0038]),
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 (see Fig. 1 where the first adhesion enhancement layer 12 is disposed between the plastic film 11 and the aluminum metal coating layer 13), 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 first adhesion enhancement layer 12 is disposed between the plastic film 11 and the aluminum metal coating layer 13 and the first anti-oxidation layer 14 is disposed on the opposite surface of the aluminum metal coating layer 13); and
PNG
media_image1.png
330
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the protective layer comprises one or more of metals, metal oxides, and conductive carbon (the first adhesion enhancement layer 12 is preferably a metal coating or a non-metal coating; [0039]).
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 0.033 ≤ C ≤ 0.05, 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 300 nm, T2 is 200 MPa, and D2 is 60000 nm, C is equal to 0.05, 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 8, Qiu ‘499 teaches the positive electrode composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the protective layer comprises one or more of nickel or nickel alloy (the first adhesion enhancement layer 12 comprises nickel; [0053] of Qiu ‘499; when the first anti-oxidation layer 14 is a metal layer, the metal is nickel (Ni); [0013] 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 or the negative 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 the protective layer has a thickness D3 of 1 nm ≤ D3 ≤ 200 nm (the thickness of the first adhesion enhancement layer 12 is 10 to 100 nm; [0039]; the first anti-oxidation layer 14 is 10 to 100 nm ([0041]); Qiu ‘499), 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 400 nm and D3 is 10 nm, the relationship of D3 ≤ 0.1 D1 is satisfied, because 10 nm ≤ 40 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 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 March 23, 2026, have been fully considered.
However, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, because all of the claimed parameters in independent 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, which is withing the disclosed ranged, 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]).
Applicant asserts that the parameters given in the prior art result in a brittleness parameter C outside of the claimed range (see the table shown on pages 3-4 of the remarks filed on march 23, 2026). However, the table is limited to T1 having a value of only 150 or 1750, without any examples having T1 of 200, which is between the range of 150 and 1750, as discussed above in Schuh ‘360.
The claimed brittleness parameter C of “0.033 ≤ C ≤ 0.05” is satisfied by the parameters disclosed in the previously cited prior art when T1 is 200 MPa, D1 300 nm, T2 is 200 MPa, and D2 is 6000 nm, because C is equal to 0.05, which is within the claimed range.
Therefore, the assertion that the claimed positive electrode composite current collector in claim 1 has an unexpected combination of high elongation at break and stable electrochemical performance is not persuasive.
Affidavit/Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on March 23, 2026, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth above, because the experimental results of the claimed positive electrode composite current collector having a brittleness parameter C of “0.033 ≤ C ≤ 0.05” are not unexpected results over the disclosed parameters in the previously cited prior art.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
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, 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
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights