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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (hereinafter “Sato”) (JP 2010-170833 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, 10 and 15, Sato teaches a current collector 11 having a single-layer structure consisting of a layer 3 having a resin 1 and a conductive material 2. The resin 1 is a crystalline resin (see paragraph 25; FIG. 2A). It is desirable that the current collector 11 has a lower electrical resistance in the film thickness direction than in the in-plane direction. That is, it is desirable that the volume resistivity in the thickness direction is smaller than the surface resistivity in the in-plane direction, and that anisotropy is observed (see paragraph 89).
In the exemplary current collector of Sato’s Example 5, a thickness of the current collector is 50 µm, an in-plane resistance is 104 Ω/□, and resistance in the film thickness direction is 102 Ω (see Table 1; paragraph 182). These values provide an in-plane resistivity of 50 Ω*cm, and a film thickness resistivity of 0.05 Ω*cm.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Sato teaches that a content of the conductive material 2 is from 1 to 30 wt% (see paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 4, an in-plane resistivity of 50 Ω*cm, and a film thickness resistivity of 0.05 Ω*cm provide a resistivity ratio of 1000.s
Regarding claim 6, Sato teaches that a conductive material may be selectively used for the surface layer in contact with the positive electrode layer, or for the surface layer in contact with the negative electrode layer (see paragraph 64).
Regarding claims 11-13, Sato teaches that the conductive material may comprise one or more of carbon, carbon black, graphite, silver, gold, copper, titanium, aluminum, and stainless steel (see paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 14, Sato teaches that the crystalline resin may comprise at least one from among high density polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate and polyamide (see paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 18, Sato teaches that the current collector may be utilized in a bipolar secondary battery (see paragraphs 128-131).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-16 and 18 above.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, although Sato does not explicitly teach specific dimensions of the non-particulate conductive material, it is well within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to select conductive materials of appropriate length, diameter, thickness and specific surface area so as to accommodate a desired current collector thickness, a desired weight content of the conductive material, and a desired conductivity of the current collector in both the surface direction and the thickness direction. In this regard, it is noted that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-16 and 18 above, and further in view of Tanaka (JP 2010-0277862 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Sato teaches that the shape of the conductive material is not limited to particle form and may have the form of a carbon nanotube (see paragraph 63).
Sato does not explicitly teach, however, angle between the conductive material and the Z direction.
Tanaka teaches a current collector including a resin layer 2 that contains a polymer material 5 and a conductive material 4 (see paragraph 27). Tanaka further teaches that it is preferable to orient the conductive material 4 in the resin layer 2 in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the current collector. By orienting the conductive material in the direction perpendicular to the surface, the conductivity in the direction perpendicular to the surface can be further improved, and conduction in the planar direction can be suppressed (see paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have oriented the conductive material of Sato to be perpendicular to the surface of the current collector as taught by Tanaka in order to enhance the anisotropy thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights