DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/16/23 was considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on 08/16/23. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: all parenthetical characters [i.e., “(in Expression…Cu film)” ] should must be removed and the limitations within the parenthesis must be positively recited, if so intended, so as to have a clear understanding of the present claims. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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. Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the publication WO 2014/080853 (heretofore WO’853) . As to claims 1 - 3 and 5- 7: WO’853 discloses that it is known in the art to make a secondary battery comprising positive/negative electrodes, a separator therebetween; and a current collector associated with either the positive/negative electrode comprising a laminated resin film/layered structure including a resin layer/film; a Cu-based coat/film on placed on the resin layer/film satisfying the X-ray diffraction measurement of the (111) plane being at least 0.3° ( Abstract; 0017-0018; 0027-0030; 0135-0145; see CLAIMS 1- 14 ; see Table 1 ; see Examples 7-14 ). As to claim 4 : WO’853 discloses that the thickness of the Cu-based coat/film ranges from 0.1- 2 µm ( 0019 ). Examiner’s note: as to the specific (111) plane orientation index and the half-width of the X-ray diffraction peak with the Expression y >/ 3.75x-0.675 (if so intended): MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims : I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not .” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) ; Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) . Furthermore, products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed characteristics (i.e. the specific first/second potentials and respective states of charge (SOC), and their particular relationship ), are necessarily present in the prior art material. “Products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims. See also In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.” As to claim 4 : WO’853 discloses that the thickness of the Cu-based coat/film ranges from 0.1-2 µm ( 0019 ). All in all, A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC, PROPERTY OR FUNCTION Where applicant claims a compositi on in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is n ot explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as wel l as for composition claims . Refer to MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof. (at least) Claim s 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the publication JP 2019-218581 (heretofore JP ’ 581 ) . As to claims 1 and 5- 7: JP’581 discloses that it is known in the art to make a secondary battery comprising positive/negative electrodes, a separator therebetween; and a current collector associated with either the positive/negative electrode comprising a laminated resin film/layered structure including a resin layer/film; a Cu-based coat/film on placed on the resin layer/film satisfying the X-ray diffraction measurement of the (111) plane being at least 0.3° (Abstract; 0002; 0145-0150 ). Examiner’s note: as to the specific (111) plane orientation index and the half-width of the X-ray diffraction peak with the Expression y >/ 3.75x-0.675 (if so intended): MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims : I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not .” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) ; Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) . Furthermore, products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed characteristics (i.e. the specific first/second potentials and respective states of charge (SOC), and their particular relationship ), are necessarily present in the prior art material. “Products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims. See also In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.” All in all, A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC, PROPERTY OR FUNCTION Where applicant claims a compositi on in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is n ot explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as wel l as for composition claims . Refer to MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof. (at least) Claim s 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the publication JP 20 20 - 098701 (heretofore JP’ 701 ) . As to claims 1 and 5- 7: JP’ 701 discloses that it is known in the art to make a secondary battery comprising positive/negative electrodes, a separator therebetween; and a current collector associated with either the positive/negative electrode comprising a laminated resin film/layered structure including a resin layer/film; a Cu-based coat/film on placed on the resin layer/film satisfying the X-ray diffraction measurement of the (111) plane being at least 0.3° (Abstract; 00 22-0026 ; 0 052 -0 060; 0080-0086 ). Examiner’s note: as to the specific (111) plane orientation index and the half-width of the X-ray diffraction peak with the Expression y >/ 3.75x-0.675 (if so intended): MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims : I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not .” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) ; Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) . Furthermore, products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed characteristics (i.e. the specific first/second potentials and respective states of charge (SOC), and their particular relationship ), are necessarily present in the prior art material. “Products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims. See also In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.” All in all, A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC, PROPERTY OR FUNCTION Where applicant claims a compositi on in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is n ot explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as wel l as for composition claims . Refer to MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof. (at least) Claim s 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the publication JP 6706013 (heretofore JP’ 013 ) . As to claims 1 and 5- 7: JP’ 013 discloses that it is known in the art to make a secondary battery comprising positive/negative electrodes, a separator therebetween; and a current collector associated with either the positive/negative electrode comprising a laminated resin film/layered structure including a resin layer/film; a Cu-based coat/film on placed on the resin layer/film satisfying the X-ray diffraction measurement of the (111) plane being at least 0.3° (Abstract; 00 25-0035 ). Examiner’s note: as to the specific (111) plane orientation index and the half-width of the X-ray diffraction peak with the Expression y >/ 3.75x-0.675 (if so intended): MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims : I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not .” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) ; Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) . Furthermore, products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed characteristics (i.e. the specific first/second potentials and respective states of charge (SOC), and their particular relationship ), are necessarily present in the prior art material. “Products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims. See also In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.” All in all, A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC, PROPERTY OR FUNCTION Where applicant claims a compositi on in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is n ot explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as wel l as for composition claims . Refer to MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof. (at least) Claim s 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the publication JP 2010-033066 (heretofore JP’0 66 ) . As to claims 1 and 5- 7: JP’0 66 discloses that it is known in the art to make a secondary battery comprising positive/negative electrodes, a separator therebetween; and a current collector associated with either the positive/negative electrode comprising a laminated resin film/layered structure including a resin layer/film; a Cu-based coat/film on placed on the resin layer/film satisfying the X-ray diffraction measurement of the (111) plane being at least 0.3° (Abstract; 0025-0035). Examiner’s note: as to the specific (111) plane orientation index and the half-width of the X-ray diffraction peak with the Expression y >/ 3.75x-0.675 (if so intended): MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims : I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not .” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) ; Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) . Furthermore, products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed characteristics (i.e. the specific first/second potentials and respective states of charge (SOC), and their particular relationship ), are necessarily present in the prior art material. “Products of ide ntical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims. See also In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963) “From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all its properties are inseparable.” All in all, A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC, PROPERTY OR FUNCTION Where applicant claims a compositi on in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is n ot explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as wel l as for composition claims . Refer to MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1282 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8760 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1752