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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/23/2026 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-15 remain pending in the application, with claims 8-15 previously withdrawn during prosecution. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous prior art rejection over Nakajima and the previous prior art rejection over Zeng.
Claim Objections
Previously withdrawn claims 12-15 were omitted from the claim listing filed 3/23/26. The Examiner will continue to consider claims 12-15 as withdrawn from consideration, since they were not explicitly canceled. Applicant is required to include them in the listing or cancel them in subsequent communications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusano et al (JP 2018098204 A) in view of Liu et al (US 9692056 B1) and Nakajima et al (JP 2018049824 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kusano teaches a current collector (i.e., resin current collector 10), comprising:
A complex polymer film layer (a conductive porous resin layer 200 ([0010] and Fig. 1)),
Wherein the complex film layer comprises:
A polymer matrix (the conductive porous resin layer constituting the resin current collector is preferably a fabric of conductive resin fibers that preferably contain a first conductive filler and a first non-conductive resin ([0011], [0042]), wherein the polymer matrix corresponds to the first non-conductive resin); and
A metal material dispersed in the polymer matrix (Kusano teaches examples of the first conductive filler as metal materials and also teaches methods for dispersing the first conductive filler to the first non-conductive resin ([0020]-[0021], [0028]))
Wherein the metal material includes a fiber-shaped metal material and a plate-shaped metal material (Kusano teaches the shape of the first conductive filler can be in the form of particles, powder, fibers, plates, chunks, cloth, and mesh ([0022]), and also discloses that conductive fillers may be used alone or in combination of two or more ([0021]), thereby suggesting that the first conductive filler can include a fiber-shaped metal material and a plate-shaped metal material. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have chosen metal material as either fibers and/or plates as suitable options. 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).
Additionally, analogous art Liu also teaches current collector materials can include metal materials and which can be combinations of tubes, wires, flakes, ellipsoids (Col 11: lines 1-21). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used a combination of a fiber-shaped metal material such as a tube or wire and a plate-shaped metal material such as a flake or ellipsoid, because Liu teaches it is a known configuration. According to MPEP 2143, A, “the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.”)
Wherein the metal material is oriented in one direction (Kusano discloses “examples of conductive resin fibers based on a non-conductive resin include conductive fibers made of a conductive resin composition containing a first non-conductive resin and a first conductive filler” and can also include coating the surface of the resin with a metal to form the first conductive filler ([0020]-[0021]). Accordingly, the metal material on the first non-conductive resin would be oriented in the direction of the conductive resin fiber, and Fig. 1 of Kusano shows that the fibers 210 are oriented in one direction. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the conductive fibers oriented in one direction given that Kusano directly teaches it is a known configuration, and consequently, the metal material of the conductive fibers would be oriented in one direction.)
Wherein a diameter of a cross-section of the fiber-shaped material is in a range of 10 to 500 nm, and a length of the fiber-shaped metal material is in a range of 0.5 to 200 µm (Kusano teaches that a fiber-shaped first conductive filler, which can be a metal material, can have an average fiber length of 0.1 to 100 µm and an average diameter of 0.01 to 1 µm (i.e., 10 nm to 1 µm) ([0024]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges for diameter and length of the fiber-shaped metal material. 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); see MPEP 2144.04)).
Kusano does not explicitly teach dimensions of a plate-shaped material, though they imply that having a shape with a certain directionality may improve the conductivity in a specific direction ([0022]), thereby suggesting an anisotropic aspect ratio as impacting the conductivity of the material and also as a suitable option for the material’s dimensions.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakajima teaches a similar composite current collector containing a conductive material and a polymer compound. Nakajima discloses “the conductive material is selected based on the ratio of its length to its diameter from the viewpoints of affinity with the polymer compound constituting the conductive film and anisotropy of the electrical resistance value of the conductive film” (machine translation [0013]), therefore, a skilled artisan would consider the dimensions of the conductive material to be result-effective variables because they impact the electrical resistance value of the conductive film (complex polymer film).
Barring evidence indicating the dimensions of the plate-shaped material are critical, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to have optimized the corresponding dimensions of a plate-shaped material through routine experimentation, including a length, thickness, and width of the metal material as motivated by the teaching of Nakajima, and within the taught dimensions of Kusano’s anisotropic fiber-shaped metal materials serving a similar function, to achieve the desired electrical resistance anisotropy, which Nakajima recognizes as associated with less deterioration of battery performance a lithium-ion secondary battery with greater durability ([0017]-[0018] lines 1-11); see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. Accordingly, optimization of the dimensions of the anisotropic plate-shaped metal material through routine experimentation and based on taught prior art conditions would have resulted in the claimed dimensions of the plate-shaped metal material.
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the current collector of claim 1. Kusano further teaches the metal can be species including aluminum, gold, silver, copper, iron, chromium (i.e., chrome), tin, indium, titanium, nickel, or alloys thereof ([0021]), which include claimed species. Kusano also teaches the polymer matrix (i.e., non-conductive resin that serves as the base material of the conductive resin fiber) can be made of a polyolefin or polymethyl methacrylate (a polyalkyl(meth)acrylate) resin ([0016]-[0017]), which correspond to claimed species.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the current collector of claim 1, and Kusano further teaches the metal of the first conductive filler, i.e. metal material, can be alloys ([0021]), thereby teaching the metal material contains two or more different metals as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the current collector of claim 1, and Kusano further teaches a thickness of the conductive porous resin layer (i.e., polymer film layer) can be 5 to 150 µm ([0050]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 200 µm. 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); see MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the current collector of claim 1. Nakajima further teaches (Fig. 2) the current collector can further comprise a metal layer (20) disposed on a surface of a polymer film layer (10) ([0024]) and further discloses an Example 4 wherein the metal layer (as a nickel layer) has a thickness of 1 µm ([0044]). Nakajima teaches such a metal layer facilitates a small electrical resistance value in the direction of current flow and also can be used as a strong electric tab ([0024]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the modified current collector of Kusano to further utilize a metal layer on a surface of the polymer film layer wherein the metal layer has a thickness of 1 µm, given that Nakajima teaches it is a known configuration and that the metal layer can provide advantages of facilitating a small electrical resistance value in the direction of current flow and also can be used as a strong electric tab. Accordingly, the thickness of the metal layer overlaps with the claimed range. 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); see MPEP 2144.04)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and reference Nakajima 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.
With respect to Applicant’s argument against Kusano, Kusano teaches the shape of the first conductive filler can be in the form of particles, powder, fibers, plates, chunks, cloth, and mesh ([0022]), and Kusano also discloses that conductive fillers may be used alone or in combination of two or more [0021], thereby suggesting that the first conductive filler can include a fiber-shaped metal material and/or a plate-shaped metal material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 14 May 2026
Prosecution Insights