DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment filed on April 10, 2026 was received. Claims 3, 12 and 17 were cancelled. Claims 1, 7, 8 and 15 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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
In view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, the Examiner withdraws the previously set forth rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato as detailed in the Office action dated January 15, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (hereinafter “Sato”) (JP 2010-170833 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation already of record) in view of Tanaka (JP 2010-0277862 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation already of record).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9-11 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.
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.
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 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).
Regarding claim 13, Sato teaches that the conductive material may further 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are as follows:
While Tanaka broadly teaches orienting fiber-shaped conductive materials, it does not define or control the included angle between the conductive material and the thickness direction within a specific angular range.
Tanaka’s metallic whisker structure to which carbon particles may be added to reduce contact resistance is structurally distinct from the presently claimed configuration in which the conductive material itself is a carbon material.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
As described above, Tanaka teaches that the conductive material is oriented in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the current collector. Given that the surface of the current collector is understood to be perpendicular to a thickness direction thereof, a conductive material which is to oriented in a direction perpendicular to the surface is oriented at an angle of 0° with respect the thickness direction.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this instance, Sato teaches that 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. Tanaka teaches that such anisotropy may be realized by orienting a 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. In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have oriented the carbon nanotube conductive material of Sato in the same manner as the metallic whisker conductive material of Tanaka.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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