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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 10th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 on August 10th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently claims 1-8 are pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 10th, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-8 based upon the 35 U.S. 103 rejection as set forth in the last Office action. See below in the Response to Arguments Section for the Examiner’s Response to arguments.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150037675 A1) in view of Shinozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130108922 A1) and Yang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040104117 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Izuhara teaches an electrolytic iron foil (Paragraph 0017) having a first surface and a second surface, as shown in the annotated figure below (Paragraph 0024).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Izuhara
Izuhara teaches the thickness of the electrolytic iron foil is less than 20 µm (5 µm to 20 µm) (Paragraph 0021).
Izuhara teaches the iron foil comprising a plurality of concave-shaped hallows (Paragraph 0018) which have a depth (three dimensional surface texture parameter Sv) of 0.5 µm to 2.5 µm (Paragraph 0021).
Therefore, Izuhara teaches a valve obtained by dividing Sv by the thickness calculated as shown below:
When Sv=0.5 µm and thickness is less than 20 µm (19 µm for the purposes of calculations):
0.5 / 19 = 0.03
When Sv=2.5 µm and thickness is 5 µm:
2.5 / 5 = 0.5
Therefore, Izuhara teaches the range of values obtained by dividing a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sv by the thickness is from 0.03 to 0.5. This overlaps the instant claimed range of valves (equal to or less than 0.27). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Izuhara is silent as to the valve obtained by dividing Sv by thickness being equal to or less than 0.27 in both the first surface and the second surface.
However, Shinozaki discloses a lithium ion secondary battery including a positive electrode and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer formed on the surface of a negative electrode current collector having a surface formed with uneven shapes (Paragraph 0002). Further, Shinozaki teaches that by applying a roughening treatment to both surfaces of the current collecting foil and eliminating the difference in shape between the two surfaces, the lithium ion secondary battery can suppress wrinkles, breakage, and other deformation in the collector due to charging and discharging as well as preventing a drop in capacity when the charge-discharge cycle is repeated (Paragraph 0122).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolytic foil of the Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of Shinozaki in which both sides of the foil are roughened. Doing so would advantageously result in a lithium ion secondary battery which suppresses wrinkles, breakage, and other deformation in the collector due to charging and discharging as well as prevents a drop in capacity when the charge-discharge cycle is repeated, as recognized by Shinozaki.
Yang discloses an electrolytic foil for a secondary battery electrode collector (Abstract). Yang teaches that when the roughness of each side of the foil is different, battery characteristics differ from each side (Paragraph 0007). Conversely, Yang teaches a more reliable battery characteristics can be obtained when the roughness on both sides of the foil are similar.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolytic foil of the Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of Yang in which the roughness of the electrolytic foil on both sides is similar. Doing so would advantageously result in more reliable battery characteristics, as recognized by Yang.
The result of the modification of Izuhara in view of Shinozaki and Yang is the roughening of both sides of the electrolytic iron foil so that the roughness on each side is similar. As discussed above, Izuhara teaches that the value obtained by dividing Sv of a surface of the foil by the thickness of the foil is from 0.03 to 0.5. According to the teachings of Shinozaki and Yang, as discussed above, the ordinary artisan would be motivated to provide a surface texture of the second surface of the foil with a roughness similar to the roughness of the first surface. The ordinary artisan would recognize that when the roughness on each side of the foil are similar according to Yang, then the Sv values of the first and second surface would be similar. The result would be that in the division of Sv by the thickness of the foil to obtain a value, the thickness of the foil would be the same for both sides of the foil and the Sv values of the first and second surface would be similar. The value obtained from the division would then be between 0.03 to 0.5 (as calculated above) in both the first surface and the second surface, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Izuhara teaches the thickness of the electrolytic iron foil is less than 20 µm (5 µm to 20 µm) and Sv is 0.5 µm to 2.5 µm (Paragraph 0021). It was calculated in the rejection of claim 1 that Izuhara teaches the range of values obtained by dividing a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sv by the thickness is from 0.03 to 0.5 in the first surface and the second surface.
This overlaps the instant claimed range of valves (equal to or less than 0.24). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
Izuhara reaches the iron foil of the disclosure is a pure iron foil such as an electromagnetic soft iron, which contains C, Mn, and Si in concentrations of 0.03% by mass or smaller, 0.50% by mass or smaller, 0.20% by mass or smaller, respectively, and Fe and inevitable impurities (Paragraph 0044).
Thus, Izuhara teaches the content of C, Mn, and Si are cumulatively 0.73% or smaller (0.03% + 0.50% + 0.2%), and the balance of Fe and inevitable impurities in the iron foil is 99.27%. As Izuhara teaches that the electrolytic foil is a “pure” iron foil, the ordinary artisan would recognize that in the 99.27% of inevitable impurities and Fe, that the iron content would be at least 80 wt% or it would be obvious to provide the iron content to be at least 80%, meeting the limitations of the instant claim. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that in an electrolytic foil which is “pure” iron foil, the non-iron elements would be desirably as small as possible and that the inevitable impurities would be smaller than the content of the non-iron components (C, Mn, and Si) of the pure iron foil purposefully quantified in the teachings of Izuhara.
Regarding claim 7, Izuhara teaches an electrolytic iron foil for a battery current collector, comprising: the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 8, Izuhara teaches an electrolytic iron foil for a battery current collector, comprising: the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0020). Izuhara teaches the battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (Paragraph 0057), therefore the battery comprising the electrolytic iron foil for a current collector may be considered a nonaqueous battery, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 above, and further in view of Huang (W.O. 2020156183 A1) (machine translation relied upon, hereafter “J. Huang”).
Regarding claim 3, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according claim 1.
Izuhara is silent as to a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdq (root mean square gradient) of the electrolytic iron foil being equal to or more than 0.06 in at least either one of the first surface and the second surface.
However, Izuhara recognizes that the surface of a foil is roughened for the purpose of enhancing adhesion (Paragraph 0006). Further, Izuhara teaches that in order to increase conductivity, the iron electrolytic foil may be coated with a conductive foil or film, comprising metals such as copper or aluminum, on a surface of the iron foil which opposes the surface in contact with the electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0054).
J. Huang discloses a surface-treated copper foil (Paragraph 2) wherein the copper foil (Figure 1, Element 100) may be an electrolytic foil formed through electrodeposition such as electroplating (Paragraph 25). J. Huang teaches the foil comprising a treatment surface (Figure 1, Element 100A) (Paragraph 26), which has a root mean square gradient Sdq which is less than or equal to 1.0 (Paragraph 9). J. Huang teaches that by controlling surface roughness parameters such as Sdq, the adhesion between the copper foil and adjacent layer it contacts (for the prior art, a carrier) is improved (Paragraph 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of the iron foil which opposes the surface in contact with the electrolyte solution of Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of J. Huang in which the three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdq of the surface is less than or equal to 1.0. Doing so would advantageously result in improved adhesion between the electrolytic foil and a neighboring conductive foil or film, as recognized by J. Huang.
The resulting range of Sdq of Izuhara in view of J. Huang lies within the Sdq range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 above, and further in view of Ueda (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120202101 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
Izuhara is silent as to the elongation being equal to or more than 1.2%.
However, Ueda discloses a thin flexible battery including an electrode comprising a sheet-like current collector (Paragraph 0001). Ueda teaches the negative electrode current collector (foil) should have an elongation of 5-15% to prevent separation of the active material and damage to the current collector during bending of the battery (Paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolytic iron foil of Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of Ueda in which elongation is 5-15%. Doing so would advantageously result in the prevent of active material separation and current collector damage, as recognized by Ueda.
The resulting range of elongation of Izuhara in view of Ueda lies within the range of elongation of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 above, and further in view of Huang (U.S. Patent No. 10781523 B1) (hereafter “H. Huang”).
Regarding claim 6, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
Izuhara is silent as to a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdr is equal to or more than 0.2% in at least either one of the first surface and the second surface.
However, H. Huang discloses an electrolytic foil for a lithium-ion battery (Paragraph 0002), comprising a drum side (first surface) which is near the cathode and a deposited side (second surface) which is near the electrolytic solution (Paragraph 0065), where the drum and the deposited sides are the outermost sides of the electrolytic foil (Paragraphs 0013, 0065). H. Huang teaches that by controlling the surface morphology of the first and second surfaces of the electrolytic foil, the adhesion strength between the electrolytic foil and the active material is enhanced which prolongs the cycle life of the lithium ion battery comprising the foil (Paragraph 0013). One the surface morphology variables taught by Huang is a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdr, which is controlled in a range of 0.06% to 13% for the first and second surfaces (Paragraph 0008) in order to optimize the reliability and durability of the lithium-ion battery as well as improve its charge-discharge cycle life performance (Paragraph 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second surfaces electrolytic foil of Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of H. Huang in which the three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdr is within the range of 0.06% to 13%. Doing so would advantageously result in improved reliability, durability, and charge/discharge characteristics of the battery, as recognized by H. Huang.
The resulting range of Sdr of Izuhara in view of H. Huang lies within the Sdr range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
In paragraphs 4-5 of the Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the Sarkar publication is evidence that the general technical effect of laser hardening treatment is an increase in tensile strength and a reduction in percentage elongation. Applicant argues that the Sarkar publication supports generally that laser irradiation of an iron-based materials may cause hardening and adversely affect elongation, and therefore a person skilled in the art would not have reasonably expected Izuhara’s laser bean treatment to improve, or even maintain, the elongation required by the claims of the present patent application.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that Sarkar provides relative teachings relating to laser hardening treatment and how it affects tensile strength and percentage of elongation of steel sheets. There is nothing in Sarkar which provides a quantitative relationship between the laser hardening treatment (for example, duration or strength of application) and the percent elongation that would enable the ordinary artisan to calculate reduction in percent elongation as a result of the treatment.
Further, it appears to the Examiner that the percent elongation measured in Sarkar, as seen in Figure 21, all lie within the claimed range before and after exposure to the laser. Therefore, the Examiner submits that there is no evidence, on the record or in the Sarkar publication, which suggests that the laser irradiation treatment of Izuhara would result in a percent elongation outside of the claimed range. Further, in the rejection above and in the Final Rejection mailed March 9th, 2026, the Examiner rejected the instant claim 5 pertaining to percent elongation over Ueda, who provided motivation to provide the percent elongation of an electrolytic foil between 5-15% in order to prevent separation of the active material.
Additionally, the Examiner presents that Sarkar teaches the effect of laser hardening treatment on the properties of carbon steel sheets, which is different in composition from the iron foil taught by Izuhara. Further, even applying the general teachings alleged by applicant that iron-based materials have increased hardness/tensile strength and reduced elongation percentage following laser beam treatment, the Examiner presents that there is no way to extrapolate or estimate precisely how these results would affect a pure iron electrolytic foil, i.e., if the percentage of elongation would be outside of the claimed range. While a laser beam treatment may reduce the elongation of iron-based sheets according to Sarkar, there is no evidence that the percentage of elongation of the foil of Izuhara following laser irradiation would fall outside of the claimed range.
Additionally, the Examiner points out that the laser beam irradiation treatment performed on the iron foil of Izuhara to roughen the surface of the foil occurs under a specific set of conditions as exemplified in the examples, including but not limited to type, output, scanning speed, frequency, wavelength, and printing speed (Paragraphs 0047, 0061). These processing conditions are entirely different from the high power fiber laser hardening carried out in the disclosure of Sarkar, which further supports that there is no way to extrapolate or estimate precisely how the laser treatment of Izuhara would affect an iron electrolytic foil, i.e., if the percentage of elongation would be outside of the claimed range.
In paragraphs 6-7 of the Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the Murakami shows that laser beam irradiation can significantly harden the surface of an iron-based material. Applicant provides that such hardening is consistent with the point that Izuhara' s laser beam treatment would not necessarily improve elongation, and may instead impair elongation or ductility.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that Murakami provides relative teachings relating to laser hardening treatment and how it affects hardness of iron-based sheets. There is nothing in Murakami which provides a quantitative relationship between the laser hardening treatment (for example, duration or strength of application) and the hardness of the foil and further how the hardness is quantitatively related to percent elongation that would enable the ordinary artisan to calculate reduction in percent elongation as a result of the treatment. Therefore, the Examiner submits that there is no evidence, on the record or in the Murakami publication, which suggests that the laser irradiation treatment of Izuhara would result in a percent elongation outside of the claimed range.
Further, in the rejection above and in the Final Rejection mailed March 9th, 2026, the Examiner rejected the instant claim 5 pertaining to percent elongation over Ueda, who provided motivation to provide the percent elongation of an electrolytic foil between 5-15% in order to prevent separation of the active material.
Additionally, the Examiner points out that the laser beam irradiation treatment performed on the iron foil of Izuhara to roughen the surface of the foil occurs under a specific set of conditions as exemplified in the examples, including but not limited to type, output, scanning speed, frequency, wavelength, and printing speed (Paragraphs 0047, 0061). These processing conditions are entirely different from the laser irradiation carried out in the disclosure of Murakami, which further supports that there is no way to extrapolate or estimate precisely how the laser treatment of Izuhara would affect an iron electrolytic foil, i.e., if the percentage of elongation would be outside of the claimed range.
In paragraphs 8-10 of the Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that laser-processed SPCC steel sheets of Sakai showed higher hardness than wire-cut specimens due to the thermal effect of laser processing, which results in hardening. Applicant argues that laser beam irradiation of an iron foil or iron-based alloy foil, as disclosed in Izuhara, would not necessarily be expected to improve elongation, and may instead impair elongation or ductility.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that Sakai provides relative teachings relating to laser hardening treatment and how it affects hardness of metal sheets. There is nothing in Sakai which provides a quantitative relationship between the laser hardening treatment (for example, duration or strength of application) and the hardness of the foil and further how the hardness is quantitatively related to percent elongation that would enable the ordinary artisan to calculate reduction in percent elongation as a Sakai of the treatment. Therefore, the Examiner submits that there is no evidence, on the record or in the Murakami publication, which suggests that the laser irradiation treatment of Izuhara would result in a percent elongation outside of the claimed range.
Further, in the rejection above and in the Final Rejection mailed March 9th, 2026, the Examiner rejected the instant claim 5 pertaining to percent elongation over Ueda, who provided motivation to provide the percent elongation of an electrolytic foil between 5-15% in order to prevent separation of the active material.
Additionally, the Examiner points out that the laser beam irradiation treatment performed on the iron foil of Izuhara to roughen the surface of the foil occurs under a specific set of conditions as exemplified in the examples, including but not limited to type, output, scanning speed, frequency, wavelength, and printing speed (Paragraphs 0047, 0061). These processing conditions are entirely different from the laser irradiation carried out in the disclosure of Sakai, which further supports that there is no way to extrapolate or estimate precisely how the laser treatment of Izuhara would affect an iron electrolytic foil, i.e., if the percentage of elongation would be outside of the claimed range.
In paragraphs 11-16 of the Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that Izuhara relies on the laser-treated surface of the iron foil as the negative electrode material while Shinozaki discloses forming a roughened surface treatment layer of copper or a copper alloy on the surface of an untreated copper foil. Applicant argues that if Shinozaki were applied to Izuhara, the special surface layer or surface profile formed by laser beam irradiation in Izuhara would be covered by the additional layer structure of Shinozaki, namely the roughened copper or copper alloy surface treatment layer and/or the active material/binder layer. As a result, the laser-treated surface of Izuhara would no longer function in the manner contemplated by Izuhara, and would impair the effects that Izuhara attributes to the laser-irradiated surface, namely improved charge/discharge reversibility and increased capacity.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that it appears there is a misunderstand in the modification of Izuhara by Shinozaki presented in the rejection of record of claim 1. The Examiner presents that, as set forth above in the Final Rejection mailed March 9th, 2026, Shinozaki was used to motivate the surface roughening treatment of Izuhara applied to both sides of the metal electrolytic foil of Izuhara.
The rejection of record did not modify Izuhara to incorporate the copper layer of Shinozaki, as alleged by applicant (instead, “…modified the electrolytic foil of Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of Shinozaki in which both sides of the foil are roughened”). The fact that Shinozaki discloses a copper foil and Izuhara discloses an iron foil does not necessitate that in their combination, the copper foil of Shinozaki must be applied on top of the iron foil of Izuhara, nor did the Examiner suggest such an incorporation when applying the teachings of Shinozaki to the disclosure of Izuhara.
The Examiner established in the rejection that Izuhara taught a surface roughness of the electrolytic iron foil, but was silent as to both sides having this disclosed roughness value Sv (three dimensional surface texture parameter). Shinozaki was used as a secondary reference to teach the benefit of having both sides of the foil having some roughness and Yang was used as a secondary reference to teach the benefit of having this roughness being similar. Thus the modification of Izuhara by both Shinozaki and Yang found it obvious to set the value obtained by dividing Sv by thickness being equal to or less than 0.27 (which was taught by Izuhara) in both the first surface and second surface.
Thus, it was established on the record in the rejections above and in the previous Final Rejection mailed March 9th, 2026, that Izuhara teaches surface texture (resulting from concave-shaped hollows) of an electrolytic iron foil, and by dividing the surface texture parameter Sv of the foil by the thickness of the foil, a value which lies within the instant claimed range established prima facie obviousness for at least one of the surfaces of the foil of Izuhara. Because Izuhara was silent as to this property in the additional surface of the electrolytic iron foil of Izuhara, the Examiner modified the surface of the electrolytic foil of Izuhara by Shinozaki and Yang, who disclosed motivation for the surfaces of an electrolytic metal foil in a battery to be subjected to a similar roughening treatment so as to obtain similar roughness (and thus Sv values) on both sides of the foil.
In paragraphs 17-20 of the Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues the disclosure of Yang is concerning surface roughness of electrolytic copper foil manufacturing while Izuhara is directed toward an iron or iron-based alloy foil. Applicant argues that even if it can be said that Yang teaches that both surface of an electrolytic copper foil may have similar roughness, such a teaching would not have provided a person skilled in the art with a reason to modify the laser-treated iron based negative electrode material of Izuhara. Yang addresses a different material, namely copper foil, and a different technical context, namely roughness control during electrolytic copper foil manufacturing. Yang does not suggest modifying the laser irradiated surface of an iron-based negative electrode material.
Applicant argues that the mere teaching in Yang that both surfaces of an electrolytic copper foil may have similar roughness is insufficient to support a motivation to modify Izuhara's iron-based negative electrode material. A person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to refer to Yang's electrolytic copper foil manufacturing technique for the purpose of modifying the iron-based negative electrode material of Izuhara, and would have no reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner that applicant's general arguments directed toward Izuhara being different from Yang in that Izuhara discloses an iron foil while Yang discloses a copper foil relies on a difference in materials to allege that Yang cannot modify Izuhara with reasonable expectation of success. Applicant has not provided by the ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success, in that Yang and Izuhara are both electrolytic foils made of metal and are thus analogous. The fact that the identity of the foil differs between Yang and Izuhara is not grounds that these prior art references cannot be combined.
Further, in the same way that applicant provides literature (Sarkar, Murakami, Sakai, described above) which deals with properties of metal foils other than iron (Sarkar relating to steel sheets, Murakami to cast iron, Sakai to steel sheets) and compares then to the electrolytic iron foil of the claimed invention, the Examiner presents that the rejection of record incorporates teachings from analogous art directed toward electrolytic metal foils and applies them with proper motivation to the disclosure of Izuhara.
Further, the Examiner presents that a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Final Rejection mailed March 9th, 2026 as the Examiner clearly states that Yang taught the benefit of surface roughness of a foil being similar on both sides in order to obtain more reliable battery characteristics. Thus the modification of Izuhara by both Shinozaki and Yang found it obvious to set the value obtained by dividing Sv by thickness being equal to or less than 0.27 in both the first surface and second surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights