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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are amended.
Claims 8, 11, and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed January 12th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of August 12th, 2025
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of the submitted replacement drawings.
The objection to claim 14 is moot because claim 14 is cancelled.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (US 2018/0047992 A1, henceforth referred to as Mui ‘992) and further in view of Hiraiwa (US 2018/0093318 A1) and Taylor (US 3819412). The combination of these three references will be referred to as modified Mui ‘992.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 13, 20, and 21, Mui ‘992 teaches a method for creating a clad current collector comprised of doping an electronically conductive substrate to a specified level of electrical conductivity ([0044], as required by claim 1, 20, and 21). This substrate comprises a monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon wafer (as required by claims 1, 20, and 21) with a thickness of 200 µm ([0033], as required by claim 2). The method further comprises depositing a metal film comprising nickel onto the surfaces of the silicon substrate using physical vapor deposition ([0036], as required by claims 1, 5, 6, 20, and 21) and the metal film is then annealed in a controlled-atmosphere oven under nitrogen or argon to form a metal surface comprised of nickel silicide on the surfaces of the silicon substrate ([0036] – [0038] as required by claims 1, 7, 9, 20, and 21). Additional layers, which may be comprised of tin, can be added to the metal silicide surface “to improve its adhesion to the active material layers” ([0039], corresponding to the foil required by claims 1, 20, and 21). These layers that improve the adhesion to these active material layers simultaneously facilitate the adhesion of the active material described in claim 13. Mui ‘992, however, fails to teach a method of laminating the foil onto the silicon substrate. Hiraiwa is analogous art to Mui ‘992 because both teach materials that can be used in devices that provide energy (fuel cells or batteries). Hiraiwa teaches that metal bodies may be bonded to each other via a lamination process using a flat press with pressures between 100 kPa – 4000 kPa, which is equivalent to 10 – 400 N/cm2 ([0054] – [0056]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 20 – 200 N/cm2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Mui ‘992 and Hiraiwa, however, fail to teach the claimed temperature range. Taylor is analogous art to Mui ‘992 and Hiraiwa because all teach materials that can be used in devices that provide energy. Although Taylor teaches the bonding of different materials, they do teach that materials can be formed together under heat and pressure such that the materials are bonded together (column 6, lines 47-56). Therefore, it would be a matter of routine optimization to determine the temperature range at which all of the materials successfully bond to each other without the functional failure of the current collector. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Mui ‘992 teaches a method that involves bonding a foil to a silicon-based substrate. The combination of Hiraiwa and Taylor teach a technique of bonding a metal foil to another substrate at a given temperature and pressure via lamination. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that laminating a metal foil onto another substrate with the conditions taught by Hiraiwa and Taylor would have a likely chance of successfully bonding the foil onto the substrate and achieving the benefits taught by Mui ‘992. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the lamination technique taught by Hiraiwa and Taylor in the method of Mui ‘992 to improve the surface adhesion of Mui’s metal silicide’s surface to active material layers. See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
Regarding claim 12, Mui ‘992 teaches that barrier layers, corresponding with the claimed seed layers, comprised of tin “can be deposited on onto the metal silicide surface to prevent it from oxidation” [0039]. In a lamination process, the deposition and bonding occur simultaneously.
Regarding claim 15, Mui ‘992 teaches a thin foil with a specified property of “a thickness of the thin foil” where the thickness is 20 µm or less [0042].
Regarding claim 17, Mui’ 992 teaches that an ohmic contact layer (the metal surface) formed on the silicon wafer surface may “create an interface with low contact resistance between the active material and the silicon wafer current collector” [0036]. The direction implied by “between” is a direction normal to the surface of the clad current collector assembly. Contact resistance is a resistance to the flow of electric current caused by incomplete contact of the surfaces through which current is flowing; a low contact resistance corresponds with a low electrical resistance. Therefore, there is a low electrical resistance in a direction normal to the surface of the clad current collector.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Mui ‘992 teaches a “bipolar plate that can include a silicon wafer current collector” (as required by claim 18) and that “a lead acid battery can use a silicon wafer as a current collector” (Mui ‘992, [0031]; as required by claim 19).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mui ‘992 as applied to claim 1 above. Modified Mui ‘992 does not teach a thin foil with a thickness in the range of 25 to 500 µm, however they do teach that films deposited onto an ohmic contact layer (corresponding with the claimed metal surface) may be formed that have a thickness of “less than about 20 micrometers” (Mui ‘992, [0042]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mui ‘992 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moomaw (US 2018/0219227 A1). Mui ‘992 teaches the doping of a silicon wafer with two members of the claimed Markush group (phosphorus and arsenic) (Mui ‘992. [0032]), but does not teach the concentration of the dopant. Moomaw is analogous art to modified Mui ‘992 because both teach materials used in devices that provide energy. . Moomaw teaches that doping silicon with “50 parts per million weight boron…can lower the silicon resistivity” allows said silicon to function as a conductive substrate [0071]. 50 parts per million lies within the claimed range of 1 to 500 parts per million. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to dope the silicon wafer of Mui ‘992 with the concentration of boron taught by Moomaw in order to allow the silicon wafer to function as a conductive substrate.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mui ‘992 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borden (US 2014/0370369 A1). Modified Mui ‘992 teaches a general method of producing a current collector, however they do not teach a cleaning step before depositing a metal film onto the silicon wafer substrate. Borden is analogous art to modified Mui ‘992 because both teach bipolar battery plates. Borden teaches a cleaning step before depositing nickel onto the silicon substrate. The cleaning step comprises using hydrofluoric acid etching on the substrate to “remove contamination and organic deposits” [0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the cleaning step of Borden in Mui ‘992’s method of producing a current collector to remove organic contaminations before depositing the metal film on the silicon substrate.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mui ‘992 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mui ‘164. Modified Mui ‘992 teaches a thin foil bonded to a metal surface that is 20 µm or less, which is close to the claimed thickness of 25 µm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). However, Mui ‘992 fails to teach a thin foil with a thickness between 50 and 100 µm. Mui ‘164 is analogous art to Mui ‘992 because both teach silicon-based current collectors. Mui ‘164 teaches a layer 5 to 100 µm thick that may be deposited onto a current collector to “improve adhesion to the active material layers” [0046]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 50 to 100 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the layers and corresponding thicknesses of Mui ‘164 as the thin foils of modified Mui ‘992 to improve the adhesion of the current collector to the active material layers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui '992 and further in view of Masaki. Mui ‘992 teaches a method for creating a clad current collector comprised of doping an electronically conductive substrate to a specified level of electrical conductivity [0044]. This substrate comprises a monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon wafer [0033]. The method further comprises depositing a metal film comprising nickel onto the surfaces of the silicon substrate [0036] and the metal film is then annealed in a controlled-atmosphere oven under nitrogen or argon to form a metal surface comprised of nickel silicide on the surfaces of the silicon substrate [0036] - [0038]. Additional layers, which may be comprised of tin, “can be deposited onto the metal silicide surface…to improve its adhesion to the active material layers” [0039]. Mui ‘992 fails to teach thermal spraying as a deposition method. Masaki teaches the usage of a “thermal spraying method” to form an intermediate layer to enhance adhesion to an active material thin film (page 5, first paragraph). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using the well-known thermal spraying technique on Mui ‘992’s substrate would result in the deposition and bonding of a thin metal layer onto and with Mui ‘992’s substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Masaki’s thermal spray technique in Mui ‘992’s method to deposit a metal layer on a substrate with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui '992 and further in view of Townsend (Continuous Hot Dip Coatings). Mui ‘992 teaches a method for creating a clad current collector comprised of doping an electronically conductive substrate to a specified level of electrical conductivity [0044]. This substrate comprises a monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon wafer [0033]. The method further comprises depositing a metal film comprising nickel onto the surfaces of the silicon substrate [0036] and the metal film is then annealed in a controlled-atmosphere oven under nitrogen or argon to form a metal surface comprised of nickel silicide on the surfaces of the silicon substrate [0036] - [0038]. Additional layers, which may be comprised of tin, “can be deposited onto the metal silicide surface…to improve its adhesion to the active material layers” [0039]. Mui ‘992 fails to teach dip coating as deposition and bonding method. Townsend is analogous art to Mui ‘992 because both discuss the usage of lead-tin alloys. Townsend teaches that the “application of a metal coating by a continuous hot dip process” is widely used and lead-tin alloys can be used as coatings (first page, columns 2 and 3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a dip coating method to apply a lead-tin alloy coating (based on the teachings of Townsend) to a substrate would have a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the dip-coating technique in Mui ‘992’s method to deposit a lead-tin coating layer on the substrate with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lev (US 2011/0305927 A1) discusses the lamination of thin lead foils onto a substrate using a compressive pressure between 1000 – 3000 kPa which is equivalent to 100 – 300 N/cm2.
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722