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 (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/03/2026, specifically at Remarks pages 13 and 16 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103 relying on Chami as the primary reference, have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the amendments to the independent claims which now require the connecting layer to be conductive. Chami teaches away from this in teaching that material 13 is non-conductive ([0085]) and that film 12 is not in electric contact with frame 13 in the alternate embodiment ([0087]). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the updated search conducted in response to the amendments and RCE.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “0.03≤A/B≤1” of Claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim interpretation: it is noted that Examiner is interpreting Claim 6 to instead mean 0.03≤B/A≤1 since the Drawings as filed 12/21/2022 show the thickness of the first portion 81 generally being thicker than (or at most equivalent to) the thickness of second portion 82, thus reading on B/A≤1 (but not on A/B≤1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>).
Regarding claim 1, Horikawa teaches a composite current collector (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a support layer having two surfaces opposite to each other along a thickness direction (resin layer 13, upper and lower surfaces; Fig. 1); and
a conductive layer provided on the two surfaces (metal layers are made of desirably the same metal, [0025]; first metal layer 11 and second metal layer 12 on respective upper and lower surfaces of 13, Fig. 1),
the conductive layer comprising a first portion (resin-laminated part 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1) and a second portion (metal-laminated parts 10B, [0027] and Fig. 1), wherein:
the first portion comprises a first sub-portion (11 within 10A, Fig. 1) and a second sub-portion (12 within 10A, Fig. 1) provided on the two surfaces (on upper and lower surfaces of 13 within 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1), respectively;
the second portion comprises a third sub-portion (11 within 10B’s, Fig. 1) and a fourth sub-portion (12 within 10B’s, Fig. 1);
the third sub-portion and the first sub-portion are integrally provided (layer 11 within 10A is integral to layer 11 within 10B’s, shown in Fig. 1; first metal layer 11 covers one of the main surfaces of the resin layer 13 and extends beyond the external side of the main surface of the resin layer 13 per [0026]);
the fourth sub-portion and the second sub-portion are integrally provided (layer 12 within 10A is integral to layer 12 within 10B’s, shown in Fig. 1; second metal layer 12 covers the main surface of the other side of the resin layer 13 and extends beyond the external side of the main surface of the resin layer 13 per [0026]);
the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion both project from the support layer (10B’s projecting from two lateral ends/edges of 13, Fig. 1) along a first direction (horizontally in Fig. 1);
the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion are affixed to each other and fused as a whole (in the metal-laminated parts 10B, it is desired for the overlaid metal layers 11 and 12 to be joined; [0028]);
the third sub-portion, an end portion of the support layer along the first direction, and the fourth sub-portion are affixed to each other and fused as a whole (sandwiching is performed in such a manner that the two sheets of metal foil extend beyond the external side of the width direction of the resin sheet so that the metal foil sheets are mutually overlaid at the end part of the two sheets of metal foil to form a laminated body, then adhesion is achieved between the metal foil and the resin sheet; [0041-0042]), with no gap between the third sub-portion, the end portion of the support layer, and the fourth sub-portion (no gaps are present between end edges of 13 and where 11/12 meet at ends 10B, Fig. 1; adhesion achieved between the metal foil and the resin sheet, [0042]); and
the second portion (at the overlaid metal-laminated 10B’s, Fig. 1 as cited above) further comprises a connecting layer (paste including resin components as binding agents, [0044]) extending in the first direction (extending horizontally in Fig. 1, as cited above) and sandwiched between the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion (paste containing metal particles and resin components is applied between the metal foil sheets, [0043]; paste in which copper particles and PVDF were mixed was applied between the end parts of the two sheets of copper foil, [0069]) in the thickness direction (vertically between 11 and 12 at 10B,’s, Fig. 1), with two surfaces of the connecting layer that are opposite to each other in the thickness direction (i.e., upper and lower in Fig. 1) contacting the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion, respectively (extended ends of foils 11,12 at ends 10B beyond 13 are laminated/overlaid and connected via the paste applied therebetween, then joined via resistance welding; see [0040-0046] in view of Fig. 1),
the connecting layer is conductive (paste contains metal particles which are desirably the same metal as the metal foil sheets, [0043]; exemplary copper particles in [0069] are known conductive material, and as evidenced by Knovel: Hobart), and
a melting point of the connecting layer (paste contains both resin and metal particles per [0043-0044], specifically exemplary PVDF and copper particles per [0069]; PVDF has a melting temperature of 158-200°C with a main melting peak between 167-169°C, as evidenced by Knovel: Wypych) is less than a melting point of the third sub-portion (made of metal foil, exemplary copper per [0069]; copper has a melting temperature near 1100°C per Horikawa [0020] and as evidenced by Knovel: Hobart) (therefore, the paste of the connecting layer – containing both PVDF and copper – would necessarily have a lower melting point, influenced by the presence of PVDF, compared to the third sub-region made up of only copper metal) (this relationship also conceivably aids the resistance welding of [0045, 0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein
the two surfaces are two first surfaces (upper and lower surfaces of 13 within 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1); and
the third sub-portion comprises two second surfaces opposite to each other along the thickness direction (upper and lower surfaces layer 11 within 10B, Fig. 1 – i.e., third sub-portion as defined above), and
the first sub-portion projects with respect to the second surfaces along the thickness direction (the portion of 11 within 10A – i.e., first sub-portion as defined above – projects vertically upward versus both surfaces of the portion of 11 within 10, see Fig. 1 – due to ½ thickness of 13 upon which 11 at 10A is stepped-up from 11 at 10B).
Regarding claim 6, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the first portion has a thickness of A (20 μm {from [0069] example of layer 13 thickness} + 2.0 μm {from [0034] preferably midpoint of layers 11 and 12 total thickness within region 10A} = 22 μm) and the second portion has a thickness of B (6.5 μm, per [0033] preferable midpoint thickness of metal laminated part 10B), wherein 0.03 ≤ [B/A] (6.5/22 = 0.3) ≤ 1 (thickness of composite collector 10 within region of 10A is larger than thickness within region 10B due to presence of layer 13 within 10B, Fig. 1; see also [0024, 0033-0036]) (see also Claim Interpretation note in Drawing Objection above).
Regarding claim 7, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein a thickness of the first sub-portion is … equal to a thickness of the second sub-portion (thicknesses of 11 and 12 within region 10A appear equal to one another, Fig. 1); and … a thickness of the third sub-portion is … equal to a thickness of the fourth sub-portion (thicknesses of 11 and 12 within region 10B appear equal to one another, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the connecting layer comprises at least one of a metal layer or an organic conductive polymer layer (a paste containing metal particles and resin components is used, where organic polymers including PVDF, PVA, SBR listed as examples of the resin component; [0043-0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the connecting layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 5 μm (the thickness of application of the paste in which copper particles and PVDF were mixed was changed within the range from 1 μm to 10 μm to change the thickness of the metal-laminated part, [0070]; overlapping range is prima facie obvious per MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 13, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a manufacturing method for the composite current collector (secondary battery current collector be manufactured suitably by a method including the steps …, [0010, 0037-0039]) according to claim 1, comprising:
providing the support layer (by applying the paste between the metal foil sheets, [0043]; paste in which copper particles and PVDF were mixed was applied between the end parts of the two sheets of copper foil that extended from the edge of the resin sheet to the external side, [0069]);
providing the first conductive sheet and the second conductive sheet (two sheets of copper foil with dimensions greater than the resin sheet were prepared, [0069]; see layers 11 and 12 in Fig. 1), and
connecting the first conductive sheet and the second conductive sheet to the two surfaces of the support layer (paste applied between the end parts of the two sheets of copper foil, and the end parts of the two sheets of copper foil were again overlaid; [0069] and Fig. 1), respectively,
forming the connecting layer that extends in the first direction (paste between 11 and 12 laterally outward at ends 10B beyond 13, [0027-0028, 0043] and Fig. 1) and is sandwiched between the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion in the thickness direction (paste applied between the end parts of the two sheets of copper foil that extended from the edge of the resin sheet to the external side, [0043, 0069]), with two surfaces of the connecting layer that are opposite to each other in the thickness direction contacting the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion, respectively (paste layer sandwiched between 11 and 12 within 10B, [0043, 0069] – which are the third and fourth sub-portions as cited above); and
affixing and fusing as a whole the third sub-portion, an end portion of the support layer along the first direction, the fourth sub-portion, and the connecting layer to each other (hot-press treatment, [0042, 0069]; resistance welding, [0045, 0069]), with no gap between the third sub-portion, the end portion of the support layer, the fourth sub-portion, and the connecting layer (no gap between lateral ends of 13 and layers 11/12 where they meet in regions 10B, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, claim 17, claim 18, claim 19, and claim 20, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches:
An electrode sheet, comprising: the composite current collector (an electrode 80, which uses the current collector 10; [0053] and Fig. 2) and an active material layer provided on a surface of the first portion of the composite current collector (an active material layer 84 is formed on both surfaces of the current collector 10, it is desired for the active material layer 84 to be formed over the resin-laminated part 10A; [0053] and Fig. 2 in view of Fig. 1).
A secondary battery (lithium ion secondary battery 100, [0058-0059] and Fig. 3), comprising the electrode sheet (secondary battery including the current collector 10, [0057]; For at least one of the positive electrode sheet 50 and the negative electrode sheet 60, the abovementioned electrode 80 is used, [0061]).
A battery module (a plurality of batteries connected in series and/or in parallel, [0060]), comprising the secondary battery (application for 100, [0066]).
A battery pack, comprising the secondary battery (lithium ion secondary battery 100 can also be used in a form of a battery pack, [0066]).
An electrical apparatus, comprising the secondary battery (100 used in electric vehicles or in electric power storage device, [0066]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein
the two surfaces are two first surfaces (upper and lower surfaces of 13 within 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1);
the third sub-portion comprises two second surfaces opposite to each other along the thickness direction (upper and lower surfaces layer 11 within 10B, Fig. 1 1 – i.e., third sub-portion as defined above); and
the first sub-portion comprises two third surfaces opposite to each other along the thickness direction (the portion of 11 within 10A – i.e., first sub-portion as defined above –has upper and lower surfaces, Fig. 1).
However, Horikawa fails to explicitly teach that one of the two third surfaces being flush with one of the two second surfaces.
Horikawa does teach in [0035] toward increasing the thickness of the metal-laminated part 10B to greater than the total thickness of the first metal layer 11 and the second metal layer 12 in the thickest portion of the resin-laminated part 10A, in [0035, 0046] toward increasing the thickness by the quantity of the metal particles added at the overlaid portion, and in [0036] that the ratio of the thickness of the metal-laminated part 10B to the total thickness of the first metal layer 11 and the second metal layer 12 in the thickest portion of the resin-laminated part 10A is desirably at least 2. Horikawa also teaches in [0024] an exemplary thickness of resin layer 13 being at least 5 μm, in [0033] the thickness of metal-laminated part 10B being more desired in the exemplary range of 4.5 to 10 μm, and in [0034] the total thickness of the metal layers 11 and 12 within region 10A being 3 μm or less to suppress heat generation. Therefore, it is within the data ranges taught by Horikawa that when the sum of thicknesses of resin layer 13 and metal layers 11 and 12 within region 10A is 5 μm + 3 μm = 8 μm (an exemplary total thickness of 10A), the thickness of 10B can also be 8 μm as such falls within the ranges taught toward Horikawa. This also meets the desirable ratio of 10B metal thickness to 10A metal-only thickness (excluding layer 13 thickness) of 8 μm:3 μm = 2.67 > 2 (which satisfies with the above citation to [0036]).
Routine optimization of the thicknesses of each layer (11, 12, 13 within 10A) versus the thickness of 10B, within the ranges taught by Horikawa, would have been within the ambit of and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in order to regulate the stress on the metal layers and suppress heat generation in the case of short circuit (Horikawa [0031, 0034]). See also MPEP 2144.05 I-II. In the above-calculated exemplary case, when both regions 10A and 10B have thicknesses of 8 μm, the claimed limitation “one of the two third surfaces being flush with one of the two second surfaces” is satisfied because the upper surfaces of 11 (in region 10A and 10B) would be flush, and the lower surfaces of 12 (in region 10A and 10B) would also be flush.
Thereby, claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>)
Regarding claim 21, Horikawa teaches a composite current collector (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a support layer having two first surfaces opposite to each other along a thickness direction (resin layer 13, upper and lower surfaces; Fig. 1); and
a conductive layer provided on the two first surfaces (metal layers are made of desirably the same metal, [0025]; first metal layer 11 and second metal layer 12 on respective upper and lower surfaces of 13, Fig. 1),
the conductive layer comprising a first portion (resin-laminated part 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1) and a second portion (metal-laminated parts 10B, [0027] and Fig. 1), wherein:
the first portion comprises a first sub-portion (11 within 10A, Fig. 1) and a second sub-portion (12 within 10A, Fig. 1) provided on the two first surfaces (on upper and lower surfaces of 13 within 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1), respectively;
the second portion comprises a third sub-portion (11 within 10B’s, Fig. 1) and a fourth sub-portion (12 within 10B’s, Fig. 1);
the third sub-portion and the first sub-portion are integrally provided (layer 11 within 10A is integral to layer 11 within 10B’s, shown in Fig. 1; first metal layer 11 covers one of the main surfaces of the resin layer 13 and extends beyond the external side of the main surface of the resin layer 13 per [0026]);
the fourth sub-portion and the second sub-portion are integrally provided (layer 12 within 10A is integral to layer 12 within 10B’s, shown in Fig. 1; second metal layer 12 covers the main surface of the other side of the resin layer 13 and extends beyond the external side of the main surface of the resin layer 13 per [0026]);
the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion both project from the support layer (10B’s projecting from two lateral ends/edges of 13, Fig. 1) along a first direction (horizontally in Fig. 1;
the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion are affixed to each other and fused as a whole (in the metal-laminated parts 10B, it is desired for the overlaid metal layers 11 and 12 to be joined; [0028]);
the third sub-portion comprises two second surfaces opposite to each other along the thickness direction (upper and lower surfaces layer 11 within 10B, Fig. 1 1 – i.e., third sub-portion as defined above); and
the first sub-portion comprises two third surfaces opposite to each other along the thickness direction (the portion of 11 within 10A – i.e., first sub-portion as defined above –has upper and lower surfaces, Fig. 1);
the second portion (at the overlaid metal-laminated 10B’s, Fig. 1 as cited above) further comprises a connecting layer (paste including resin components as binding agents, [0044]) extending in the first direction (extending horizontally in Fig. 1, as cited above) and sandwiched between the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion (paste containing metal particles and resin components is applied between the metal foil sheets, [0043]; paste in which copper particles and PVDF were mixed was applied between the end parts of the two sheets of copper foil, [0069]) in the thickness direction (vertically between 11 and 12 at 10B,’s, Fig. 1), with two surfaces of the connecting layer that are opposite to each other in the thickness direction (i.e., upper and lower in Fig. 1) contacting the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion, respectively (extended ends of foils 11,12 at ends 10B beyond 13 are laminated/overlaid and connected via the paste applied therebetween, then joined via resistance welding; see [0040-0046] in view of Fig. 1),
the connecting layer is conductive (paste contains metal particles which are desirably the same metal as the metal foil sheets, [0043]; exemplary copper particles in [0069] are known conductive material, and as evidenced by Knovel: Hobart), and
a melting point of the connecting layer (paste contains both resin and metal particles per [0043-0044], specifically exemplary PVDF and copper particles per [0069]; PVDF has a melting temperature of 158-200°C with a main melting peak between 167-169°C, as evidenced by Knovel: Wypych) is less than a melting point of the third sub-portion (made of metal foil, exemplary copper per [0069]; copper has a melting temperature near 1100°C per Horikawa [0020] and as evidenced by Knovel: Hobart) (therefore, the paste of the connecting layer – containing both PVDF and copper – would necessarily have a lower melting point, influenced by the presence of PVDF, compared to the third sub-region made up of only copper metal) (this relationship also conceivably aids the resistance welding of [0045, 0069]).
However, Horikawa fails to explicitly teach that one of the two third surfaces and one of the two second surfaces are flush with each other and connected via a smooth, continuous transition.
Horikawa does teach in [0035] toward increasing the thickness of the metal-laminated part 10B to greater than the total thickness of the first metal layer 11 and the second metal layer 12 in the thickest portion of the resin-laminated part 10A, in [0035, 0046] toward increasing the thickness by the quantity of the metal particles added at the overlaid portion, and in [0036] that the ratio of the thickness of the metal-laminated part 10B to the total thickness of the first metal layer 11 and the second metal layer 12 in the thickest portion of the resin-laminated part 10A is desirably at least 2. Horikawa also teaches in [0024] an exemplary thickness of resin layer 13 being at least 5 μm, in [0033] the thickness of metal-laminated part 10B being more desired in the exemplary range of 4.5 to 10 μm, and in [0034] the total thickness of the metal layers 11 and 12 within region 10A being 3 μm or less to suppress heat generation. Therefore, it is within the data ranges taught by Horikawa that when the sum of thicknesses of resin layer 13 and metal layers 11 and 12 within region 10A is 5 μm + 3 μm = 8 μm (an exemplary total thickness of 10A), the thickness of 10B can also be 8 μm as such falls within the ranges taught toward Horikawa. This also meets the desirable ratio of 10B metal thickness to 10A metal-only thickness (excluding layer 13 thickness) of 8 μm:3 μm = 2.67 > 2 (which satisfies with the above citation to [0036]).
Routine optimization of the thicknesses of each layer (11, 12, 13 within 10A) versus the thickness of 10B, within the ranges taught by Horikawa, would have been within the ambit of and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in order to regulate the stress on the metal layers and suppress heat generation in the case of short circuit (Horikawa [0031, 0034]). See also MPEP 2144.05 I-II. In the above-calculated exemplary case, when both regions 10A and 10B have thicknesses of 8 μm, the claimed limitation “one of the two third surfaces being flush with one of the two second surfaces” is satisfied because the upper surfaces of 11 (in region 10A and 10B) would be flush, and the lower surfaces of 12 (in region 10A and 10B) would also be flush, and said flush / flat surfaces (upper surface connecting integral layer 11 from 10A to 10B, and lower surface connecting integral layer 12 from 10A to 10B, respectively) also reads on “and connected via a smooth, continuous transition”.
Thereby, claim 21 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112259742 B, cited in the 12/21/2022 IDS, with citations below to a machine translation attached to the 07/22/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 3, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach the end portion along the first direction has a width of 1 mm to 10 mm.
Horikawa does teach that as the two sheets of metal foil, metal foil is prepared that has a larger dimension, at least in the width direction (that is, the short-side direction of the main surface of the metal foil), than the resin sheet so that sandwiching is performed in such a manner that the two sheets of metal foil extend beyond the external side of the width direction of the resin sheet ([0040-0042]).
Zhang is analogous in the art of composite current collectors (metal current collector of the battery is prepared by using the composite substrate 100, Zhang pg. 7 ln. 204-205; used to prepare positive and negative pole pieces per pg. 6 ln. 195-196), teaching similar features to Horikawa and the instant invention including first conductive layer 120 and second conductive layer 130 on the two main surfaces of surfaces of insulating/support layer 110 (Fig. 3 and pg. 7 ln 213-214), thus forming a first portion (region 102 in Zhang), and a second portion without the insulating layer where the first and second conductive layers 120 and 130 are connected to each other (region 101, Fig. 3). Zhang teaches that between the first and second portions (102 and 101 in Zhang Fig. 3 as cited above/annotated below), there is a gently sloping transition region (see annotation of Fig. 3 below), wherein the width of this transition region is between 0.5 and 10 mm (Zhang pg. 8 ln. 261-266). As shown in Zhang Fig. 3, an end portion of the support layer 110 exists in this sloped region having the 0.5 and 10 mm width.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure the dimension of the end portion along the first direction within Horikawa (i.e., metal-laminated parts 10B), in view of Zhang, had a width of 0.5 and 10 mm (encompassing the claimed range) since such is taught to be an acceptable embodiment of a similar structure. Since Horikawa is silent toward this longitudinal dimension (in the first direction; i.e., horizontal in Horikawa Fig. 1) and since Change in Size/Proportion is a design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art per MPEP IV A, a skilled artisan would have been motivated by the teaching of Zhang to set this dimension within Horikawa and expect a sufficiently sealed metal-laminated end portion of the composite current collector.
Thereby, claim 3 is obvious.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Canfield Technologies (“Low Melt Alloys”, <https://www.canfieldmetals.com/low_melt_alloys.htm>, 2003 – as cited in the previous rejection).
Regarding claim 10, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach the connecting layer comprises at least one of tin, indium, bismuth and cadmium.
However, Horikawa does teach the metal that constitutes the metal particles (of the connecting layer paste as cited above) is not particularly limited ([0044]).
Canfield is pertinent to the problem of connection by fusing (fusible alloys, paragraph 1) and teaches that alloys made from two or more of Bismuth, Tin, Lead, Cadmium, and Indium are commonly used as fusible alloys because they are easily melted at a relatively low temperature compared to most solder alloys (paragraph 1). Canfield teaches that beneficial characteristics of these alloys include: low vapor pressure, good thermal conductivity, ease of handling, high liquid fluidity, ability to be reused, and controlled thermal dimensional properties (paragraph 3).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an alloy made from of Bismuth, Tin, Cadmium, and/or Indium for the relatively low-melting temperature connecting layer between the metal foil layers at the metal laminated portions of Horikawa since Canfield teaches that alloys containing these metals are common fusible alloys and impart benefits of low vapor pressure, good thermal conductivity, ease of handling, high liquid fluidity, ability to be reused, and controlled thermal dimensional properties. Also, simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., fusible metal alloy instead of conductive paste) to achieve predictable results (electric and mechanical connection between metal foil layers 11 and 12) supports a conclusion of obviousness (per MPEP 2143I(B)).
Thereby, claim 10 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Naarmann et al. (US 20060099510 A1, cited in the previous Office action(s)).
Regarding claim 11, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach the connecting layer comprises at least one of polypyrrole, polythiophene, polyaniline, polyacetylene, polyphenylene, or polyphenylene acetylene.
However, Horikawa does teach in [0044] that the resin components of the paste are not particularly limited, but substances used as binding agents in the active material layers in the electrodes of secondary batteries can be used suitably, and examples of such that can be mentioned are polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), and the like.
Naarmann is analogous in the art of current collectors. Naarmann teaches that basic set-up of an electrode comprises a current collector and an adhesive applied thereto ([0026]), and further teaches that polyaniline, polypyrrole or the like, are added to the aqueous adhesive dispersion as electrically conductive additives ([0024]) since they are known electrically conductive polymers ([0028]) that can be added as necessary to increase desired contact conductivity at the current collector ([0021]).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the materials of polypyrrole or polyaniline as taught by Naarmann the polymeric components within the conductive paste connecting layer of Horikawa and expect suitable electrical and mechanical connection between the metal layers 11 and 12.
Thereby, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 113066986 A, citation No. 3 in the 12/21/2022 IDS, with the foreign publication provided therewith used below for figure citations; and with text citations below made to a machine translation of the description attached to the 07/22/2025 Office action).
Regarding claim 14 and claim 15, Horikawa teaches the limitations of claim 13 above but fails to teach removing part of the first sub-portion along the thickness direction to thin the first sub-portion, nor removing part of the third sub-portion along the thickness direction to thin the third sub-portion.
However, Horikawa does teach in [0030] that the thickness of the metal-laminated parts 10B is greater than the total thickness of the first metal layer 11 and the second metal layer 12 in the thickest portion of the resin-laminated part 10A. This corresponds to a relatively thinned first sub-portion (i.e., 11 within 10A of Horikawa as cited above).
Zhao is analogous in the art of composite current collectors and teaches a method comprising
removing part (through corrosion process detailed in pg.8 ln.190-pg.9 ln.199) of the first sub-portion along the thickness direction to thin the first sub-portion (first thinned portion 2111 formed in the first metal layer 21 through a corrosion thinning process, pg.8 ln.184-185 and Fig. 2; 2111 is within area of 211 per pg.9 ln.201 and Fig. 2), and
removing part (through corrosion process detailed in pg.8 ln.190-pg.9 ln.199) of the third sub-portion along the thickness direction to thin the third sub-portion (second thinned portion 2211 formed in the second metal layer 22 through a corrosion thinning process, pg.8 ln.185-186 and Fig. 2; 2211 within area of 221 per pg.9 ln.206 and Fig. 2).
In view of this teaching of Zhao, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the manufacturing method of Horikawa to include steps of removing part of each the first and third sub-portions in order to achieve desirable thickness of the composite current collector, and expect beneficial results such as a lighter weight resultant battery.
Thereby, claims 14-15 are rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 2022/0367880 A1, with foreign priority date of 05/13/2021 before instant foreign priority date of 12/10/2021) as evidenced by Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. ((2013). Welding Guide (2nd Edition): (EW-385, 2013) - 3. Properties, Identification, Classification, and Welding of Metals. Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt00U4VGN3/welding-guide-2nd-edition/properties-identification>) and Wypych, George ((2022). Handbook of Polymers (3rd Edition) - PVDF: Poly(vinylidene Fluoride). ChemTec Publishing. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/id:kt012YHXI2/handbook-polymers-3rd/pvdf-poly-vinylidene>) in view of Hellring et al. (US 20140272583 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Horikawa teaches a composite current collector (10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a support layer having two surfaces opposite to each other along a thickness direction (resin layer 13, upper and lower surfaces; Fig. 1); and
a conductive layer provided on the two surfaces (metal layers are made of desirably the same metal, [0025]; first metal layer 11 and second metal layer 12 on respective upper and lower surfaces of 13, Fig. 1),
the conductive layer comprising a first portion (resin-laminated part 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1) and a second portion (metal-laminated parts 10B, [0027] and Fig. 1), wherein:
the first portion comprises a first sub-portion (11 within 10A, Fig. 1) and a second sub-portion (12 within 10A, Fig. 1) provided on the two surfaces (on upper and lower surfaces of 13 within 10A, [0027] and Fig. 1), respectively;
the second portion comprises a third sub-portion (11 within 10B’s, Fig. 1) and a fourth sub-portion (12 within 10B’s, Fig. 1);
the third sub-portion and the first sub-portion are integrally provided (layer 11 within 10A is integral to layer 11 within 10B’s, shown in Fig. 1; first metal layer 11 covers one of the main surfaces of the resin layer 13 and extends beyond the external side of the main surface of the resin layer 13 per [0026]);
the fourth sub-portion and the second sub-portion are integrally provided (layer 12 within 10A is integral to layer 12 within 10B’s, shown in Fig. 1; second metal layer 12 covers the main surface of the other side of the resin layer 13 and extends beyond the external side of the main surface of the resin layer 13 per [0026]);
the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion both project from the support layer (10B’s projecting from two lateral ends/edges of 13, Fig. 1) along a first direction (horizontally in Fig. 1);
the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion are affixed to each other and fused as a whole (in the metal-laminated parts 10B, it is desired for the overlaid metal layers 11 and 12 to be joined; [0028]);
the third sub-portion, an end portion of the support layer along the first direction, and the fourth sub-portion are affixed to each other and fused as a whole (sandwiching is performed in such a manner that the two sheets of metal foil extend beyond the external side of the width direction of the resin sheet so that the metal foil sheets are mutually overlaid at the end part of the two sheets of metal foil to form a laminated body, then adhesion is achieved between the metal foil and the resin sheet; [0041-0042]), with no gap between the third sub-portion, the end portion of the support layer, and the fourth sub-portion (no gaps are present between end edges of 13 and where 11/12 meet at ends 10B, Fig. 1; adhesion achieved between the metal foil and the resin sheet, [0042]);
the second portion (at the overlaid metal-laminated 10B’s, Fig. 1 as cited above) further comprises a connecting layer (paste including resin components as binding agents, [0044]) extending in the first direction (extending horizontally in Fig. 1, as cited above) and sandwiched between the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion (paste containing metal particles and resin components is applied between the metal foil sheets, [0043]; paste in which copper particles and PVDF were mixed was applied between the end parts of the two sheets of copper foil, [0069]) in the thickness direction (vertically between 11 and 12 at 10B,’s, Fig. 1), with two surfaces of the connecting layer that are opposite to each other in the thickness direction (i.e., upper and lower in Fig. 1) contacting the third sub-portion and the fourth sub-portion (extended ends of foils 11,12 at ends 10B beyond 13 are laminated/overlaid and connected via the paste applied therebetween, then joined via resistance welding; see [0040-0046] in view of Fig. 1);
but fails to explicitly teach: the connecting layer comprises at least one of polyacetylene, polyphenylene, or polyphenylene acetylene.
However, Horikawa does teach in [0044] that the resin components of the paste are not particularly limited, but substances used as binding agents in the active material layers in the electrodes of secondary batteries can be used suitably, and examples of such that can be mentioned are polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), and the like.
Hellring is analogous in the art of current collectors (conductive substrate, Abstract) and pertinent to the problem of conductive adhesives. Hellring teaches suitable resin-based binders for coating layer including conductive or semiconductive binders including polyacetylene, polyphenylene vinylene, … polyphenylene sulfide; and further lists resinous binders that contain a conductive additive, such as … metal powders including copper (Hellring [0043]).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the materials of polyacetylene, polyphenylene as taught by Hellring as the polymeric component(s) within the conductive paste connecting layer of Horikawa and expect suitable electrical and mechanical connection between the metal layers 11 and 12.
Thereby, claim 22 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (CN 112259742, as cited and attached of record) shows in Fig. 3 one of the two third surfaces and one of the two second surfaces connected via a smooth, continuous transition (see smooth exterior shape of composite collector between sub-potions, Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights