DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Examiner Note
3. It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2024/0128464 A1, unless stated otherwise.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because use of a run on sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
8. The use of the term “Super-P” of the phrase “conductive carbon Super-P” (see specification, [0088]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
9. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
10. Claims 4, 6 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
11. Regarding claim 4, “the blank areas” constitutes inconsistent claim language relative to the phrase “plurality of blank areas” recited in claim 3, which hinders the readability of the claims. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “the plurality of blank areas.”
12. Regarding claim 6, there is inconsistent claim language with “raised stripe”, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “raised stripes.”
13. Regarding claim 19, “an active material layer” constitutes inconsistent antecedent basis relative to it already being introduced in claim 18, which hinders the readability of the claims. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “the active material layer.”
14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
15. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
16. Claims 5 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
17. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the blank area.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 depends from claim 3, where claim 3 recites “a plurality of blank areas.” Therefore, it is unclear if claim 5 is referring to a specific single instance in claim 3. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as instead reciting “one or more of the plurality of blank areas.”
18. Claim 16 recites the limitation “the surface of the current collector.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 depends from claim 1, where claim 1 recites “a surface of the substrate.” Therefore, claim 16 is referring to a different surface than in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, claim 16 is interpreted as instead reciting “a surface of the current collector.”
19. Claim 17 recites the limitations “the surface of the battery electrode plate” and “the surface of the conductive coating layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 17 depends from claim 16 which depends from claim 1. Claim 16 recites “the surface of the current collector” and claim 1 recites “a surface of the substrate.” Therefore, it is unclear where the tab is positioned. For the purposes of examination, claim 17 is interpreted as instead reciting “a surface of the battery electrode plate” and “a surface of the conductive coating layer.”
20. Claim 18 recites the limitation “the other side.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites “one side of the substrate.” Therefore, it is unclear how many sides there are and thus unclear as to the position of the blank foil area or conductive coating. For the purposes of examination, claim 18 is interpreted as instead reciting “another side.”
21. Claim 19 recites the limitations “the edge” three times, “the corresponding” two times, “the size” two times, and “the exceeding part” two times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which edge of the active material layer claim 19 is referring to, along with if “the corresponding edge” of the conductive coating layer is referring to a specific instance not previously introduced. Also, it is unclear if both of “the size of the exceeding part” phrases are referring to a specific instance not previously introduced. Lastly, it is unclear which edge of the conductive coating layer claim 19 is referring it, along with if “the edge of the corresponding active material layer” is referring to a specific instance not previously introduced. For the purposes of examination, claim 19 is interpreted as instead reciting “an edge”, “a corresponding”, “a size”, and “an exceeding part.”
22. Claims 17-19 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 16 and therefore include, and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Claims 1-4, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20240297310 A1, hereinafter Kim).
26. Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a current collector ([0051], element 100), comprising a substrate (base film, [0051]-[0052], element 101) and a conductive coating layer (conductive material, paragraph 52, element 102) coated on a surface of the substrate ([0052]), wherein the conductive coating layer comprises alternately arranged raised parts and recessed parts ([0058] and [0120], FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, elements 102a and 102b).
27. Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches raised parts comprise raised stripes ([0120], FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, element 102a), which are convex ([0058]) and arranged at intervals along a first direction ([0075], [0081] and [0123], FIG. 4A); and recessed parts comprise a recessed thin layer ([0128], element 102), located between two adjacent raised stripes ([0073], FIG. 4B), and forming a recessed structure on a conductive coating layer ([0058], [0073] and [0076], FIG. 4B).
28. Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches a plurality of blank areas, not coated with a conductive coating layer, are distributed on a recessed thin layer ([0078] and [0080], FIG. 5a, element 102b).
29. Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches blank areas are distributed in a matrix; and/or blank areas are arranged in multiple-rows, and blank areas of two adjacent rows are arranged in a staggered manner ([0078] and [0080], FIG. 5A and FIG. 6A, element 102b).
30. Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a substrate (base film, [0052] and [0056], element 101) configured to be a polymeric membrane (polymer film, [0052]) deposited ([0056]) with a conductive layer (conductive material, [0058], element 102).
31. Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches a battery, comprising the current collector set forth/cited above in the rejection of claim 1 ([0049]). The battery of Kim reads on the battery defined by claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 114284506 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations, hereinafter Zhou).
36. Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 3.
37. Kim remains silent regarding a diameter of the blank area is 10 μm–50 μm; and/or a distance between two adjacent blank areas is 80 μm–120 μm.
38. Zhou is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a diameter of the blank area (blind hole, [n0008] and [n0051], element 20) is 10 μm–500 μm. Wherein some embodiments of the invention use a blind hole diameter of 20-50 μm and a center distance between adjacent blind holes of 30-5000 μm (Zhou, [n0011]-[n0012]).
39. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate teachings of Zhou so that a diameter of the blank area is 10–500 μm; and/or a center distance between two adjacent blank areas is 30-5000 μm. Doing so would reduce the cost and weight of the battery, thereby improving the safety, performance, and service life of the battery as well as ensure high electrical performance as recognized by Zhou (Zhou, [n0008]). Wherein the aforesaid range encompasses the lower bound and upper bound of the claimed range, a diameter of the blank area is 10 μm–50 μm, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
40. Regarding claim 6, the grounds of rejection of claim 5 above are incorporated herein and read on the current collector defined by claim 6.
41. A distance between two adjacent raised stripes is equivalent to a width of a recessed thin layer where a diameter of a blank area is located therebetween two adjacent raised stripes. A plurality of blank areas are distributed on the recessed thin layer, therefore, the distance between two adjacent raised stripes of claim 6 must be at least a diameter of a blank area.
42. Zhou is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a diameter of the blank area (blind hole, [n0008]) is 10 μm–500 μm ([n0008]). Wherein some embodiments of the invention use a blind hole diameter of 20-50 μm (Zhou, [n0011]).
43. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate teachings of Zhou so that a distance between two adjacent raised stripes is 10 μm–500 μm. Wherein the aforesaid range encompasses the lower bound and upper bound of the claimed range, 60-250 μm, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
44. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20150014617 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations, hereinafter “Kim ‘617”).
45. Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 1.
46. Kim remains silent regarding a pore size of the conductive coating layer ranges from 50 nm to 2000 nm.
47. Kim ‘617 is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a porous electron conductive layer may have a pore size in a range of 100 nm or more and 5 cm or less ([0019] and [0038]).
48. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate teachings of Kim ‘617 so that a pore size of the conductive coating layer ranges from 100 nm or more and 5 cm or less. Doing so would allow for an electrode and a lithium secondary battery “which halves the precipitated mn”, thereby improving lithium-ion movement from a negative electrode to increase resistance, and in turn improving the performance and capacity of the electrode as recognized by Kim ‘617 (Kim ‘617, [0004] and [0013]). Wherein the aforesaid range is within the lower bound of, and encompasses the upper bound of the claimed range, 50-2,000 nm, thereby render the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
49. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above.
50. Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 1.
51. Kim further teaches a thickness of a conductive coating layer ranges from 0.3 μm to 2.5 μm, based on a minimum and maximum cross-section of a conductive material ([0064]). The thickness range of the conductive coating layer disclosed by Kim encompasses, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed conductive coating layer thickness of 0.4 μm-0.8 μm (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
52. Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 1.
53. Kim further teaches a thickness of a substrate (base film, [0055]) ranges from 1.4 μm-50 μm ([0055]). The thickness range of the substrate disclosed by Kim encompasses, and thereby renders prima facie obvious the claimed substrate thickness of 3 μm-10 μm (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
54. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, further in view of Zhou and Kim ‘617.
55. Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the current collector set forth above in the rejections of claims 1-4, 8, 11, 15, and 20. Further, the rejection of claims 5-6 over Kim in view of the teachings of Zhou, and the rejection of claim 7 over Kim in view of the teachings of Kim ‘617, are incorporated herein by reference.
56. Kim further teaches a substrate comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with a thickness of 7 μm and aluminum with a thickness of 0.5 μm ([0143]), resulting in a substrate comprising a thickness of 7.5 μm. Also, Kim teaches an electrolyte comprising LiPF6 with a concentration of 1.1 M ([0143]). Furthermore, Kim teaches the ability to control the conductivity of a current collector for an electrode or ensure safety of a battery depending on an amount (weight) or thickness of a conductive material with which a surface of a base film is coated. Therefore, it is necessary to use a method capable of controlling or adjusting the thickness or weight of the conductive material ([0063], MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
57. Kim remains silent regarding a volume resistance of a current collector is 1 mΩ–5 mΩ.
58. However, the current collector of Kim, as modified by the teachings of Zhou and the teachings of Kim ‘617 (hereinafter “Kim/Zhou/Kim ‘617”), would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed current collector in Applicant’s specification in terms of comprising: (I) a substrate ([0038]) and (II) a conductive coating layer ([0038]) (III) coated on a surface of the substrate ([0038]), wherein (IV) the conductive coating layer comprises alternately arranged raised parts and recessed parts ([0038]). In addition, (V) raised parts comprise raised stripes ([0007]), (VI) which are convex ([0007] and [0040]) and (VII) arranged at intervals along a first direction ([0007]); and (VIII) recessed parts comprise a recessed thin layer ([0007]), (IX) located between two adjacent raised stripes ([0007]), and (X) forming a recessed structure on a conductive coating layer ([0007]). Additionally, (XI) a plurality of blank areas, not coated with a conductive coating layer, are distributed on a recessed thin layer ([0008]), and (XII) blank areas are distributed in a matrix; and/or blank areas are arranged in multiple-rows, and blank areas of two adjacent rows are arranged in a staggered manner ([0009]). Furthermore, (XIII) a diameter of the blank areas is 10 μm–50 μm ([0010]), and (XIV) a pore size of the conductive coating layer ranges from 50 nm to 2000 nm ([0013]). Moreover, (XV) a thickness of a conductive coating layer ranges from 0.4 μm-0.8 μm ([0014]) and (XVI) a thickness of a substrate ranges from 3 μm to 10 μm ([0017]). Wherein, (XVII) a substrate is configured to be a polymeric membrane deposited with a conductive layer ([0021]). Additionally, (XVIII) Applicant’s specification Example 1 states lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) was added at a concentration of about 1.12 mol/L ([0088], MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Finally, (XIX) a battery comprises the current collector set forth/cited above in the rejection of claim 1 ([0026]).
59. Given that the current collector of Kim/Zhou/Kim ‘617 would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed current collector in terms of the foregoing elements (I)-(XIX), it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the current collector of Kim/Zhou/Kim ‘617 would have necessarily exhibited a volume resistance of from 1 mΩ–5 mΩ, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), (Kim, [0058]).
60. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, and further in view of Tokuda et al. (US 20120308881 A1, hereinafter Tokuda).
61. Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 1.
62. Kim remains silent regarding a surface roughness of the substrate ranges from 0.2 μm to 3 μm.
63. Tokuda is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a substrate “average surface roughness (Ra) thereof is generally 0.01 μm or higher, preferably 0.03 μm or higher, and is generally 1.5 μm or less, preferably 1.3 μm or less, more preferably 1.0 μm or less” ([0600]).
64. Tokuda provides the following motivation: “current collector substrates having an Ra exceeding 1.5 μm generally are not easily available as foils having a thickness practical for batteries” (Tokuda, [0601]).
65. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the current collector of Kim by utilizing a substrate having a surface roughness not exceeding 1.5 μm, as taught by Tokuda, as substrates having said surface roughness would have been readily recognized as suitable for the intended use as current collectors in batteries (MPEP 2144.07), and/or to form a battery (including said current collector) having a practical thickness as taught by Tokuda (Tokuda, [0601]).
66. Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the current collector set forth above in the rejections of claims 1-4, 8, 11, 15, and 20. Further, the rejection of claim 10 over Kim in view of the teachings of Tokuda, is incorporated herein by reference.
67. Kim further teaches a substrate comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with a thickness of 7 μm and aluminum with a thickness of 0.5 μm ([0143]), resulting in a substrate comprising a thickness of 7.5 μm. Also, Kim teaches an electrolyte comprising LiPF6 with a concentration of 1.1 M ([0143]). Furthermore, Kim teaches the ability to control the conductivity of a current collector for an electrode or ensure safety of a battery depending on an amount (weight) or thickness of a conductive material with which a surface of a base film is coated. Therefore, it is necessary to use a method capable of controlling or adjusting the thickness or weight of the conductive material ([0063], MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
68. Kim remains silent regarding a volume resistance of a substrate ranges from 0.5 mΩ to 10 mΩ.
69. However, the current collector of Kim, as modified by the teachings of Tokuda (hereinafter “Kim/Tokuda”), would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed current collector in Applicant’s specification in terms of comprising: (I) a substrate ([0038]) and (II) a conductive coating layer ([0038]) (III) coated on a surface of the substrate ([0038]), wherein (IV) the conductive coating layer comprises alternately arranged raised parts and recessed parts ([0038]). In addition, (V) raised parts comprise raised stripes ([0007]), (VI) which are convex ([0007] and [0040]) and (VII) arranged at intervals along a first direction ([0007]); and (VIII) recessed parts comprise a recessed thin layer ([0007]), (IX) located between two adjacent raised stripes ([0007]), and (X) forming a recessed structure on a conductive coating layer ([0007]). Additionally, (XI) a plurality of blank areas, not coated with a conductive coating layer, are distributed on a recessed thin layer ([0008]), and (XII) blank areas are distributed in a matrix; and/or blank areas are arranged in multiple-rows, and blank areas of two adjacent rows are arranged in a staggered manner ([0009]). Furthermore, (XIII) a diameter of the blank areas is 10 μm–50 μm ([0010]), and (XIV) a pore size of the conductive coating layer ranges from 50 nm to 2000 nm ([0013]). Moreover, (XV) a thickness of a conductive coating layer ranges from 0.4 μm-0.8 μm ([0014]) and (XVI) a thickness of a substrate ranges from 3 μm to 10 μm ([0017]). Moreover, (XVII) a surface roughness of the substrate ranges from 0.2 μm to 3 μm ([0055]) and (XVIII) a substrate is configured to be a polymeric membrane deposited with a conductive layer ([0021]). Additionally, (XIX) Applicant’s specification Example 1 states lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) was added at a concentration of about 1.12 mol/L ([0088]). Finally, (XX) a battery comprises the current collector set forth/cited above in the rejection of claim 1 ([0026]).
70. Given that the current collector of Kim/Tokuda is substantially identical or identical to the claimed current collector in terms of the foregoing elements (I)-(XX), it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the substrate of Kim/Tokuda would have necessarily exhibited a volume resistance of from 0.5 mΩ to 10 mΩ, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily posses the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), (Kim, [0058]).
71. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20180316013 A1, hereinafter Lee).
72. Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 1.
73. Kim remains silent regarding a dispersing agent for preparing the conductive coating layer is polyvinyl pyrrolidone and/or a carboxymethyl cellulose material.
74. Lee is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a dispersing agent for preparing the conductive coating layer is polyvinyl pyrrolidone and/or a carboxymethyl cellulose material ([0025] and [0038]).
75. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate teachings of Lee so that a dispersing agent for preparing the conductive coating layer is polyvinyl pyrrolidone and/or a carboxymethyl cellulose material. Doing so would allow for a binder having high adhesion thereby maintaining a battery having high capacity as recognized by Lee (Lee, [0007] and [0012]).
76. Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 1.
77. Kim remains silent regarding a binder of the conductive coating layer is a polyacrylic acid aqueous binder.
78. Lee is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a binder of the conductive coating layer is a polyacrylic acid aqueous binder ([0025] and [0031]).
79. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate teachings of Lee so that a binder of the conductive coating layer is a polyacrylic acid aqueous binder. Doing so would allow for a binder having high adhesion thereby maintaining a battery having high capacity as recognized by Lee (Lee, [0007] and [0012]).
80. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above, and further in view of Komatsubara et al., (US 20210234190 A1, hereinafter Komatsubara).
81. Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the current collector of claim 1.
82. Kim remains silent regarding a battery electrode plate, comprising a current collector according to claim 1 and an active material layer coated on a surface of the current collector.
83. Komatsubara is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a battery electrode plate ([0026], element 11 and [0038], element 21), comprising a current collector ([0026], element 12 and [0038], element 22) and an active material layer ([0026], element 13, and [0038], element 23) coated on a surface of the current collector ([0026] and [0038]).
84. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate teachings of Komatsubara so that a battery electrode plate, comprises a current collector and an active material layer coated on a surface of the current collector. Doing so would allow for a lithium-ion secondary battery capable of withstanding a higher temperature thereby improving its heat resistance and allowing for operable performance in a high temperature environment as recognized by Komatsubara (Komatsubara, [0004] and [0006]).
85. Regarding claim 17, Kim, as modified by Komatsubara (hereinafter “Kim/Komatsubara”) teaches the current collector of claim 16.
86. Additionally, Kim further teaches a tab (lead tab, [0089], element 190) is positioned on the surface of the battery electrode plate and located on the surface of the substrate; or the tab is located on the surface of the conductive coating layer away from the substrate ([0096], [0103], and [0117], element 190).
87. Regarding claim 18, Kim/Komatsubara teaches the current collector of claim 16.
88. Additionally, Kim further teaches a tab (lead tab, [0096], element 190) is positioned on one side of the substrate; and on the other side of the substrate, an area, opposite to the tab, is a blank foil area, or coated with a conductive coating, with or without being coated by an active material layer ([0096] and [0117], element 190).
89. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Komatsubara as previously applied to claim 18, and further in view Fan (CN 113471410 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations, hereinafter Fan).
90. Regarding claim 19, Kim/Komatsubara teaches the current collector of claim 18.
91. Kim/Komatsubara remains silent regarding a conductive coating being coated by an active material layer completely or partially; and, the active material layer covers the conductive coating layer, and the edge of the active material layer exceeds the corresponding edge of the conductive coating layer; the size of the exceeding part is a, and a value of a is 0–5 mm; or the edge of the conductive coating layer exceeds the edge of the corresponding active material layer; the size of the exceeding part is b, and a value range of b is 0–5 mm.
92. Fan is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a conductive coating being coated by an active material layer completely or partially (Specific Embodiment section); and, the active material layer covers the conductive coating layer (Specific Embodiment section), and the edge of the active material layer exceeds the corresponding edge of the conductive coating layer; the size of the exceeding part is a, and a value of a is 0–5 mm; or the edge of the conductive coating layer exceeds the edge of the corresponding active material layer; the size of the exceeding part is b, and a value range of b is 0–5 mm (0.1-0.5mm, Specific Embodiment section).
93. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim/Komatsubara to incorporate teachings of Fan so that a conductive coating is coated by an active material layer completely or partially; and, the active material layer covers the conductive coating layer, and the edge of the active material layer exceeds the corresponding edge of the conductive coating layer; the size of the exceeding part is a, and a value of a is 0–5 mm; or the edge of the conductive coating layer exceeds the edge of the corresponding active material layer; the size of the exceeding part is b, and a value range of b is 0–5 mm. Doing so would allow for a conductive layer that makes it easier to transport electrons between active coatings, thereby reducing resistance of the active coatings, improving electron transmission rate, and improving battery capacity as recognized by Fan (Fan, Specific Embodiment section).
Pertinent Prior Art
94. The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
95. I. Nakamura et al., US 20230327112 A1; teaches positive electrode active material dimensions of 4.4cm x 9.4cm, negative electrode active material dimensions of 4.5cm x 9.5cm, and separator dimensions of 4.7cm x 9.8cm ([0213]).
II. Nakajima et al., JP2012043628A; teaches volume resistivity of the conductive layer (“surface electrical resistance, surface resistivity, and volume resistivity” section).
III. Suga et al., US 10714787 B2; teaches a ratio, B/A, of the volume resistivity of the battery (B) to the area per layer of the positive electrode plate (A) (col. 2, lines 12-18).
Conclusion
96. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
97. 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.
98. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
99. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782