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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 13, 19 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 22 and 23 have been added; support for claim 22 is found in paragraph [0071] of the instant specification, support for claim 23 is found in canceled claim 19.
Claims 1, 14-16, and 21 have been amended; support for claim 1 is found in canceled claim 13 and partially deleted claim 14, claim 14 has been amended to better clarify the invention and correct dependency, and claims 15 and 16 have been amended to correct dependency.
Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 21-23 are currently pending in this office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudano et al. (US20040126663A1), in view of Gauthier et al. (US5,521,028A), and in further view of Ogawa et al. (US2022/0115671A1 with foreign priority date of 2/15/2019)
As to claim 1, Sudano discloses a positive current collector (40, fig. 2, [0025], [0038]), comprising: a support layer(polymer film (42), comprising two opposite surfaces in its own thickness direction (figs. 2 & 3); a metal conductive layer (first conductive metallic layer (44,52) [0038-39]), disposed on at least one of the two opposite surfaces of the support layer (FIG. 3); and a protective layer (first protective layer (46,54) [0038-39]), Sudano discloses, The protective layer preferably contributes to the electronic conductivity of the current collector. [0029], but does not explicitly teach, and a protective layer, comprising a first protective layer disposed between the support layer and the metal conductive layer.
In the same field of endeavor Gauthier discloses a metallic collector [C3L55], and further teaches, metallization by deposit under vacuum, of at least one metal, on at least one face of an insulating support film of synthetic resin (polypropylene [C4L47], as exemplified in paragraph[0067] of the instant specification), the metal for the metallization being selected so as to constitute a substrate promoting an electrochemical deposit and its thickness being adjusted between about 0.005 and 0.1 micron in order to give a metallized film having a sufficient electronic conductivity to initiate a uniform electrochemical deposit; [C4L10-18] Where the metallization of the insulating support film provides a protective layer contributing to the conductivity of the collector as taught by Gauthier, disposed between the insulating support film and the conductive metallic layer as taught by Sudano.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Sudano with the protective layer of Gauthier to improve the conductivity of the collector.
Sudano discloses the material of the protective layer is selected from one or more of metal oxides (Metal oxides [Sudano, 0037]). Sudano does not explicitly teach the metal oxides of aluminum oxide, cobalt oxide, or nickel oxide, but in the same field of endeavor Ogawa discloses positive electrode collector with protective layer [Abstract] and teaches (The protective layer 31 includes an inorganic compound (hereinafter referred to as “inorganic compound P” [0029]… Examples of preferable inorganic compounds P include inorganic oxides such as aluminum oxide, and highly chemically stable and inexpensive aluminum oxide is preferably used. [0030]).
Sudano teaches metal oxides [0037] but fails to explicitly teach the metal oxides of aluminum oxide, cobalt oxide, or nickel oxide. Ogawa discloses a protective layer and further teaches, the material of the protective layer is aluminum oxide, and highly chemically stable and inexpensive aluminum oxide is preferably used [0030].
Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use aluminum oxide of Ogawa for the protective layer because there known equivalents of metallic oxides in batteries and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.), and thereby providing high chemical stability at lower commercial cost.
modified Sudano discloses an second protection layer (46) and a first protective layer (metallized layer of Gauthier) (Fig. 2) but does not disclose that the thickness of the second layer is greater than the thickness of the first layer, regarding the limitation of a thickness of the second protective layer being Da, a thickness of the first protective layer being Db, and Da and Db satisfying Da>Db.
Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, Sudano does not disclose that there is a different in thicknesses of the protective layers. However, applicant’s own disclosure states that it can be understood that the protective layers on the two surfaces of the aluminum-based conductive layer 102 may be the same or different in material and thickness,” ([0098]). Therefore, by applicant’s disclosure, the claimed current collector would not perform differently if the thicknesses of the upper protective layer and the lower protective layer were the same or different, and therefore, the claimed current collector is not patentably distinct from the current collector of Sudano in the absence of a recitation of the relative thicknesses of the protective layers.
Sudano does not explicitly teach a ratio of a density of the metal conductive layer to an intrinsic density of a material of the metal conductive layer is greater than or equal to 0.89. Sudano does disclose by vaporization of metal particles a denser and more even coating may be obtained requiring a lesser amount of metal. [Sudano, 0032]. Where Sudano teaches a more even coating can be achieved with a denser coating it would be obvious to make the coating as dense as possible.
The ratio of a density of the metal conductive layer to an intrinsic density of a material of the metal conductive layer would provide a range from zero to one (0-1) and applicant is reminded that 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 material of the metal conductive layer (conductive metallic layer) is selected from one or more of aluminum (Aluminum (Al) [Sudano, 0028]), aluminum alloy, nickel, nickel alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, silver and silver alloy.
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Sudano discloses the material of the metal conductive layer is aluminum (Aluminum (Al) [0028]) or aluminum alloy;
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Sudano discloses (The chosen metal may be vacuum vapor deposited or plasma activated deposited onto the polymer support film [0028]) which meets the limitation of the metal conductive layer is a vapor deposited layer or an electroplated layer.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Sudano discloses (A conductive metallic layer having a thickness of less than 3 microns , [0026]) which meets the limitation a thickness D1 of the metal conductive layer is 300 nm <D1< 3µm. Applicant is reminded that 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).
As to claims 6-10, modified Sudano discloses that the object of the invention is improved properties (corrosion resistance) via a weight and thickness reduction of the current collector via the use of the disclosed layered orientation ([0006]). Further applicant is reminded that when the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure or composition, or produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (n re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
In the instant case, the prior art discloses an identical layered current collector structure as an alternate embodiment disclosed by the applicant (Fig. 3) and teaches the claimed structure of claim 1 in the combination with Gauthier, and Ogawa. Sudano additionally teaches the same polymers for forming the support layer, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0027]) of the instant specification paragraph [0067] at an overlapping thickness of 1 to 15 microns ([0015]) when compared to the thickness of the support layer of the instant application from 1 to 20 microns paragraph [0059], the same aluminum-based material composition, aluminum ([0028]), and the same composition for the protective layer of metal oxide ([abstract]) at an overlapping thickness of 5 to 500 nanometers ([0017]) when compared to the thickness of the protective layer of the instant application from 1 to 200 nanometers paragraph [0100]. Thus, the overall composition of the positive electrode current collector is substantially identical. Additionally, the process for forming the claimed current collector is preferred to be the evaporation method as a preferred example of a vacuum evaporation method ([0106], applicant’s specification), while the same method is disclosed by Sudano to form the current collector of the prior art ([0026]), thus reading on claim 4. For this reason, the claimed properties of the volume resistivity, and tensile strain, of claims 6-10 are inherently possessed by the current collector of the prior art, as the structures and processes of forming are substantially identical.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Sudano discloses (The polymer support film …polyethylene terephthalate [0027]) which meets the limitation of the positive current collector according to claim 1, wherein the support layer comprises one or more of a polymer material and a polymer-based composite material; optionally, the polymer material is selected from one or more of polyamide, polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, poly(propylene-ethylene), acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, sodium polystyrene sulfonate, polyacetylene, silicone rubber, polyoxymethylene, polyphenylene ether, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethylene glycol, polysulfur nitride polymer materials, polyphenyl, polypyrrole, polyaniline, polythiophene, polypyridine, cellulose, starch, protein, epoxy resin, phenolic resin, and derivatives, cross-linked products and copolymers thereof, and optionally, the polymer-based composite material comprises the polymer material and an additive, and the additive comprises one or more of a metallic material and an inorganic non-metallic material.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, modified Sudano discloses a thickness D3 of the protective layer is 1nm < D3 < 0.1D1 (metallized film (protective layer) between about 0.005 and 0.1 micro [Gauthier, C4L14-16]). Applicant is reminded 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Sudano discloses the upper protective layer thickness (Da), protective metal layer, having a thickness of between 5 and 500 nanometer [Sudano, Abstract, 0010], which overlaps the claimed range of 1 nm ≤ Da ≤ 200 nm and Gauthier teaches metallization by deposit under vacuum of metal on a face of a support film of synthetic resin (lower protective layer (Db)) at a thickness of 0.005 to 0.1 micron [Abstract], which overlaps the claimed range of 1 nm ≤ Db ≤ 200 nm. It is noted, 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding the limitation Da ≤ 0.1D1 and Db ≤ 0.1D1, the Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Sudano discloses an second protection layer (46) and a first protective layer ((metallized layer of Gauthier)) (Fig. 2) but does not disclose the relative thickness to each other.
Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, Sudano does not disclose that there is a different in thicknesses of the protective layers. However, applicant’s own disclosure states that it can be understood that the protective layers on the two surfaces of the aluminum-based conductive layer 102 may be the same or different in material and thickness,” ([0098]). Therefore, by applicant’s disclosure, the claimed current collector would not perform differently if the thicknesses of the upper protective layer and the lower protective layer were the same or different, and therefore, the claimed current collector is not patentably distinct from the current collector of Sudano in the absence of a recitation of the relative thicknesses of the protective layers.
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Sudano further teaches the first protective layer comprises suitable metals comprise silver (Ag), gold (Au), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt) and metal oxides [0029].Gauthier teaches the second protective layer selected from copper, nickel, iron, molybdenum, chromium, carbon, zinc, silver, gold or alloys thereof [C4L51-52] but fails to teach metal oxide. Since Sudano teaches the protective layers can be silver (Ag), gold (Au), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt) and metal oxides, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use metal oxide of Sudano to replace the second layer of Gauthier as the protective layer because there known equivalents of protective materials in batteries and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.) Sudano and Gauthier do not explicitly teach the metal oxides are aluminum oxide, cobalt oxide, or nickel oxide, but in the same field of endeavor Ogawa discloses positive electrode collector with protective layer [Abstract] and teaches (The protective layer (31) includes an inorganic compound (hereinafter referred to as “inorganic compound P” [0029]… Examples of preferable inorganic compounds P include inorganic oxides such as aluminum oxide, and highly chemically stable and inexpensive aluminum oxide is preferably used. [0030]).
Sudano teaches metal oxides [0037] but fails to explicitly teach the metal oxides of aluminum oxide, cobalt oxide, or nickel oxide. Ogawa discloses a protective layer and further teaches, the material of the protective layer is aluminum oxide, and highly chemically stable and inexpensive aluminum oxide is preferably used [0030].
Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use aluminum oxide of Ogawa for the protective layer because there known equivalents of metallic oxides in batteries and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.), and thereby providing high chemical stability at lower commercial cost.
As to claim 17, Sudano discloses a positive plate, comprising a positive current collector and a positive active material layer disposed on the positive current collector, wherein the positive current collector is the positive current collector according to claim 1.([0041], fig.4)
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated, Sudano discloses comprising a positive plate, wherein the positive plate is a positive plate according to claim 17. ([0041], fig.4)
As to claim 23, Sudano discloses a positive current collector (50, fig. 3, [0025], [0039]), comprising: a support layer (polymer support film 42 [0039]), comprising two opposite surfaces in its own thickness direction (fig. 3);
a metal conductive layer (52,56, conductive metallic layer [0039-40] fig. 3), disposed on at least one of the two opposite surfaces of the support layer (fig. 3, [0039]);
Sudano discloses, The protective layer preferably contributes to the electronic conductivity of the current collector. [0029], but does not explicitly teach, and a protective layer, comprising a first protective layer disposed between the support layer and the metal conductive layer.
In the same field of endeavor Gauthier discloses a metallic collector [C3L55], and further teaches, metallization by deposit under vacuum, of at least one metal, on at least one face of an insulating support film of synthetic resin (polypropylene [C4L47], as exemplified in paragraph[0067] of the instant specification), the metal for the metallization being selected so as to constitute a substrate promoting an electrochemical deposit and its thickness being adjusted between about 0.005 and 0.1 micron in order to give a metallized film having a sufficient electronic conductivity to initiate a uniform electrochemical deposit; [C4L10-18] Where the metallization of the insulating support film provides a protective layer contributing to the conductivity of the collector as taught by Gauthier, disposed between the insulating support film and the conductive metallic layer as taught by Sudano.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Sudano with the protective layer of Gauthier to improve the conductivity of the collector.
Sudano discloses the material of the protective layer is selected from metal oxides (Metal oxides [Sudano, 0037]), but fails to explicitly teach the metal oxides of cobalt oxide, or nickel oxide, however, in the same field of endeavor Ogawa discloses part of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide penetrates the protective layer [0006] and the lithium-containing transition metal oxide 33 included in the positive electrode mixture layer 32 contains a transition metal element such as Co, Mn, and Ni [0025] Where Co or No metal oxide penetrating the protective layer meets the limitation of a material of the protective layer comprising cobalt oxide or nickel oxide; Ogawa further teaches the object of the present disclosure is to provide a secondary battery that improves battery performance while ensuring safety with a protective layer. [0005]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Sudano with the metal oxides as taught by Ogawa to improves battery performance while ensuring safety with a protective layer.
wherein a ratio of a density of the metal conductive layer to an intrinsic density of a material of the metal conductive layer is greater than or equal to 0.89, Sudano discloses by vaporization of metal particles a denser and more even coating may be obtained requiring a lesser amount of metal. [Sudano, 0032]. Where Sudano teaches a more even coating can be achieved with a denser coating it would be obvious to make the coating as dense as possible.
The ratio of a density of the metal conductive layer to an intrinsic density of a material of the metal conductive layer would provide a range from zero to one (0-1) and applicant is reminded that 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).
and the material of the metal conductive layer (conductive metallic layer) is selected from one or more of aluminum (Aluminum (Al) [Sudano, 0028]), aluminum alloy, nickel, nickel alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, silver and silver alloy.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudano et al. (US20040126663A1), in view of Gauthier et al. (US5,521,028A), and in further view of Kim et al. (US2022/0093930A1 with foreign priority date of 1/30/2019)
As to claim 21, Sudano discloses a positive current collector ((50) fig.3), comprising: a support layer (42), comprising two opposite surfaces in its own thickness direction (fig. 3),
a metal conductive layer ((52,56) [0039]), disposed on at least one of the two opposite surfaces of the support layer (fig. 3);
Sudano discloses, The protective layer preferably contributes to the electronic conductivity of the current collector. [0029], but does not explicitly teach, and a protective layer, comprising a first protective layer disposed between the support layer and the metal conductive layer.
In the same field of endeavor Gauthier discloses a metallic collector [C3L55], and further teaches, metallization by deposit under vacuum, of at least one metal, on at least one face of an insulating support film of synthetic resin (polypropylene [C4L47], as exemplified in paragraph[0067] of the instant specification), the metal for the metallization being selected so as to constitute a substrate promoting an electrochemical deposit and its thickness being adjusted between about 0.005 and 0.1 micron in order to give a metallized film having a sufficient electronic conductivity to initiate a uniform electrochemical deposit; [C4L10-18] Where the metallization of the insulating support film provides a protective layer contributing to the conductivity of the collector as taught by Gauthier, disposed between the insulating support film and the conductive metallic layer as taught by Sudano.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Sudano with the protective layer of Gauthier to improve the conductivity of the collector.
and the material of the metal conductive layer (conductive metallic layer) is selected from one or more of aluminum (Aluminum (Al) [Sudano, 0028]), aluminum alloy, nickel, nickel alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, silver and silver alloy.
wherein a ratio of a density of the metal conductive layer to an intrinsic density of a material of the metal conductive layer is greater than or equal to 0.89, Sudano discloses by vaporization of metal particles a denser and more even coating may be obtained requiring a lesser amount of metal. [Sudano, 0032]. Where Sudano teaches a more even coating can be achieved with a denser coating it would be obvious to make the coating as dense as possible.
The ratio of a density of the metal conductive layer to an intrinsic density of a material of the metal conductive layer would provide a range from zero to one (0-1) and applicant is reminded that 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).
Sudano does not explicitly disclose a polymer support film of polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), poly sodium styrene sulfonate (PSS), or polyimide (PI) . However in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses a positive current collector [0038] and teaches polymer film (101) or support film may be made of polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), [0049] fig. 4A, which meets the claimed limitation.
Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the polymer support of Kim because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.) and at the time of the invention 1 polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), were known to be used as a polymer supports.
Regarding to the limitation of “the support layer being a composite layer structure of two or more layers,” examiner notes the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudano et al. (US20040126663A1), in view of Gauthier et al. (US5,521,028A), in view of Kim et al. (US2022/0093930A1 with foreign priority date of 1/30/2019), and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US2010/0298522A1)
As to claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Sudano does not explicitly disclose the support layer further comprises an additive, and the additive comprises nickel-coated graphite powder or nickel-coated carbon fiber. Kim is reasonably pertinent to the materials for collectors and teaches carbon fibers coated with nickel are materials used with conductive films [0114].
Modified Sudano teaches metallic collector [Gauthier C3L55] or support layer but fails to teach the support layer comprises nickel-coated graphite powder or nickel-coated carbon fiber. Kim discloses a conductive film with nickel coated carbon fibers used in collectors [0114].
Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use nickel coated carbon fibers as metallic collector in Sudano’s support layer because there known equivalents of conductors in batteries and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudano et al. (US20040126663A1), in view of Gauthier et al. (US5,521,028A), and in further view of Ogawa et al. (US2022/0115671A1 with foreign priority date of 2/15/2019) evidenced by of JR Davis, Alloying: Understanding the Basics, p351-416, ASM International 2001, retrieved from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://materialsdata.nist.gov/bitstream/handle/11115/173/Aluminum%20and%20Aluminum%20Alloys%20Davis.pdf on October 11, 2024.
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Sudano discloses (Aluminum (Al) [0028]) which as evidenced by JR Davis has a density of 2.7 g/cm3 which lies inside the claimed density of the metal conductive layer is 2.5 g/cm3~2.8 g/cm3, and applicant is reminded that 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 9, the references applied to claim 1, fail to disclose the structure of the protective layer, the materials of the protective layer, the thicknesses of the protective layers (Da, Db), and the relative thicknesses of the protective layers to each other. The office respectfully disagrees as discussed above Sudano in view of Gauthier provide the claimed structure, Ogawa is cited for the claimed material aluminum oxide, and it is noted claim 1 does not claim a thickness of individual protective layers Da, and Db, but instead a relationship between Da and Db of relative dimension, Da > Db, and applicant is reminded, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04), as discussed above.
Applicant argues, page 10, neither Sudano or Gauthier disclose a range of thicknesses for the protective layer (46) of Sudano or the metallized layer of Gauthier. The office respectfully disagrees as discussed above the protective metal layer, having a thickness of between 5 and 500 nanometer [Sudano, Abstract, 0010], and Gauthier teaches metallization by deposit under vacuum of metal on a face of a support film of synthetic resin (lower protective layer (Db)) at a thickness of 0.005 to 0.1 micron [Abstract] which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Applicant argues, page 10, the thickness relationship of Da>Db has a beneficial protective effect, and cites examples of table 3 and 4 of applicant’s specification. The office respectfully disagrees as table 3 collectors 4-9 through 4-13 applies different materials nickel, nickel oxide, and aluminum oxide, along with different thicknesses so it is unclear if the capacity retention of table 4 is a result of thickness or material.
Applicant argues that the combination of Sudano and Gauthier is the result of impermissible hindsight. However, applicant does not distinctly point out how the combination above relies upon impermissible hindsight. Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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 at 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728