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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
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 and 4-13 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 term “likely to be corroded” in claims 1, 5, 12, and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purposes of this office action, claims 1, 5, 12, and 13 will be examined based on a current collector comprising a material chosen from nickel, copper, iron, molybdenum, and manganese
It is recommended to change the recitation to:
“… comprising a material chosen from copper, iron, molybdenum, and manganese …”
Applicant is required to make appropriate changes.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerlau (US 20150104712 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kerlau discloses a current collector for a negative electrode (Fig. 1E, item 142, current collector) (para. 0015, [the electrode may be a negative electrode … the current collecting substrate may comprise copper])
the current collector comprising a material likely to be corroded in the presence of sulfides chosen from copper (para. 0015, [the electrode may be a negative electrode. the current collecting substrate may comprise copper])
Kerlau does not teach:
wherein the current collector is coated with at least one protective layer
However, a variation of Kerlau teaches wherein the substrate may include a multi-layer structure (para. 0207, [substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]).
Examiner notes that based on the substrate being a multi-layer structure, the current collector can be made of copper with a layer of stainless steel to form a multilayer structure.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kerlau to have a multi-layer collector composed of copper coated by a layer of stainless steel, as taught by para. 0207 of Kerlau. It would have been obvious to choose from the known list of materials disclosed in para. 0207 with reasonable expectation of success. Further, in para. 0207, Kerlau discloses an example, where copper is coated with nickel, and further shows stainless steel and copper are functional equivalents.
Modified Kerlau teaches the protective layer:
which is electronically conducting and insulates from Li+ ions (the instant specification discloses stainless steel as a material contained in the protective layer and therefore inherently contains the properties of being electronically conducting and lithium ion insulating, as claimed)
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
such that the protective layer is located at the interface of the current collector with an active mass of said negative electrode (para. 0207, [active materials may be deposited as layers on conductive substances for delivering electrical current between the active materials and cell terminals … substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]);
wherein said protective layer protects the current collector from a solid sulfide electrolyte (para. 0207, the multi-layer structure of the current collector places the stainless steel in between the collector and the active material layer, and therefore provides a physical barrier between the collector and the separator/sulfide electrolyte) (para. 0208, [a separator material may include … polyphenylene sulfides]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kerlau discloses the current collector according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein said protective layer is devoid of at least one of oxalate.
(para. 0207, [substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]. Examiner notes that based on the substrate being a multi-layer structure, the current collector can be made of copper with a layer of stainless steel to form a multilayer structure). Stainless steel is devoid of oxalate.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kerlau discloses the current collector according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the material that is likely to be corroded is copper (para. 0015, [the electrode may be a negative electrode. the current collecting substrate may comprise copper]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kerlau discloses a negative electrode comprising the current collector according to claim 1, wherein said active material of said electrode is graphite (para. 0130, [the first (or second) active material layer may further comprise an additional particulate electrode material …. Examples of suitable materials include electroactive carbon materials such as graphite]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kerlau discloses an electrochemical element (Fig. 5, item 504 [negative electrode]) comprising the current collector (Fig. 1E, is a cross-section of the negative electrode and comprises the current collector [item 142]) according to claim 1, and a solid sulfide electrolyte (para. 0208, [a separator material may include … polyphenylene sulfides]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kerlau discloses an electrochemical module (Fig. 5, module composed of one group of item 504 [negative electrode], item 508 [separator], and item 506 [positive electrode]) comprising the stacking of at least two elements (Fig. 5, item 504 [negative electrode], item 508 [separator], and item 506 [positive electrode] are stacked), each of the at least two elements being the electrochemical element according to claim 9 (item 504 [negative electrode] is one of the at least two elements that is stacked and is the electrochemical element according to claim 9), each of the at least two elements being electrically connected to one or more other elements (Examiner notes that the item 504 [negative electrode], item 508 [separator], and item 506 [positive electrode] of Fig. 5 are electrically connected in order for the cell to function.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kerlau teaches a battery comprising one or more electrochemical modules according to claim 10 (See Fig. 5, item 500 [cell] includes multiple groups of item 504 [negative electrode], item 508 [separator], and item 506 [positive electrode]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kerlau discloses a current collector for a negative electrode (Fig. 1E, item 142, current collector) (para. 0015, [the electrode may be a negative electrode … the current collecting substrate may comprise copper])
the current collector comprising a material likely to be corroded in the presence of sulfides chosen from copper (para. 0015, [the electrode may be a negative electrode. the current collecting substrate may comprise copper])
wherein the current collector is coated with at least one protective layer (para. 0207, [substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]. Examiner notes that based on the substrate being a multi-layer structure, the current collector can be made of copper with a layer of stainless steel to form a multilayer structure.)
which is electronically conducting and insulates from Li+ ions (the instant specification discloses stainless steel as a material contained in the protective layer and therefore inherently contains the properties of being electronically conducting and lithium ion insulating, as claimed)
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
such that the protective layer is located at the interface of the current collector with an active mass of said negative electrode (para. 0207, [active materials may be deposited as layers on conductive substances for delivering electrical current between the active materials and cell terminals … substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]);
wherein said at least one protective layer contains at least one material selected from stainless steel (para. 0207, [substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]. Examiner notes that based on the substrate being a multi-layer structure, the current collector can be made of copper with a layer of stainless steel to form a multilayer structure)
Regarding claim 13, modified Kerlau discloses a current collector for a negative electrode (Fig. 1E, item 142, current collector) (para. 0015, [the electrode may be a negative electrode … the current collecting substrate may comprise copper])
the current collector comprising a material likely to be corroded in the presence of sulfides chosen from copper (para. 0015, [the electrode may be a negative electrode. the current collecting substrate may comprise copper])
wherein the current collector is coated with at least one protective layer (para. 0207, [substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]. Examiner notes that based on the substrate being a multi-layer structure, the current collector can be made of copper with a layer of stainless steel to form a multilayer structure.)
which is electronically conducting and insulates from Li+ ions (the instant specification discloses stainless steel as a material contained in the protective layer and therefore inherently contains the properties of being electronically conducting and lithium ion insulating, as claimed)
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
such that the protective layer is located at the interface of the current collector with an active mass of said negative electrode (para. 0207, [active materials may be deposited as layers on conductive substances for delivering electrical current between the active materials and cell terminals … substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]);
wherein said at least one protective layer contains at least one material selected from stainless steel (para. 0207, [substrate materials may include copper and … stainless steel … including multi-layer structures]. Examiner notes that based on the substrate being a multi-layer structure, the current collector can be made of copper with a layer of stainless steel to form a multilayer structure)
wherein said protective layer protects the current collector from a solid sulfide electrolyte (para. 0207, the multi-layer structure of the current collector places the stainless steel in between the collector and the active material layer, and therefore provides a physical barrier between the collector and the separator/sulfide electrolyte) (para. 0208, [a separator material may include … polyphenylene sulfides]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerlau (US 20150104712 A1) and further in view of Ali (Ali et al. Deposition of Stainless Steel Thin Films: An Electron Beam Physical Vapour deposition Approach. MDPI. 14 February 2019).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kerlau discloses a method of preparing the current collector according to claim 1.
Modified Kerlau does not teach wherein said method comprises the deposition of said protective layer on the current collector.
Ali, in the same field of endeavor, stainless steel coatings, teaches wherein said method comprises the deposition of a stainless steel coating (Ali, pg. 2, third paragraph,[the deposition of SS thin films on metallic substrates using an EB-PVD]) on a copper substrate (Ali, pg. 2, third paragraph, [a comparison between the morphologies of the SS films, of 150 nm, coated on copper (Cu) substrates with fixed deposition rates of 0.05 Å/s to 1.45 Å/s was performed]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added Kerlau’s stainless steel layer to its copper collector, by means of electron beam vapor deposition as taught by Ali, in order to obtain thin layers with controlled deposition rates that show a uniform elemental distribution with a well-constructed film structure that covers the whole exposed area in order to make a thin film that is ultrathin, uniform, conformal, and controllable (Ali, pg. 14, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kerlau teaches the method according to claim 6, and further teaches wherein the deposition is carried out by physical vapor deposition (Ali, pg. 14, first paragraph, [stainless steel EB-PVD coating]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Other Pertinent Art
Rangasamy (US 20200395618 A1)
Fan (US 20170244093 A1)
Xie (US 20210296637 A1)
Ose (WO 2014111791 A1)
Que (US 20210066687 A1)
Kuwajima (US 20210249700 A1)
Majima (US 20130130119 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721