Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/362,502

CURRENT COLLECTOR WITH ANCHORING INTERFACE LAYER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
TRAN, UYEN M
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nissan North America Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
31%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 31% of cases
31%
Career Allowance Rate
129 granted / 414 resolved
-33.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
456
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
74.5%
+34.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 414 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of species A in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al (PG pub 20120189912), and further in view of Nishimura et al (PG Pub 20230107979) or alternatively Koh et al (PG Pub 20180065997). Regarding claim 1,4 , Honda et al teaches a battery cell comprising: a current collector 3 (b) [fig 1 para 19-22]; an electrode active material layer (7) [fig 1 para 19-22]]; and an adhesive layer which is considered to the interface layer disposed between the current collector and the electrode active material layer [para 38-39], the electrode active material layer comprising an electrode active material including lithium [para 46], the interface layer comprising a transition metal oxide including oxygen and at least one transition metal (Zinc oxide) [para 39]. Honda et al teaches the interface layer having a surface in contact with the electrode active material layer [para 38-39], but Honda et al does not teach the interface layer having recess. Nishimura et al teaches the current electrode having surface with recesses for improving adhesive [fig 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the surface of the interface of Honda et al to having recess as taught by Nishimura et al for improving adhesion [para 84]. Or alternatively; Koh et al teaches the surface of the current electrode having fine projection and recess for improving adhesion [para 84]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the surface of the interface of Honda et al to having fine projection or recess as taught by Koh et al for improving adhesion [para 84]. Regarding claim 2, the current collector is formed of at least one of copper and aluminum [para 25 37]. Regarding claim 3, modified Honda et al teaches the electrode active material including lithium metal and a lithium alloy [para 49]. Regarding claim 5, the surface of the interface layer includes the at least one recess and at least one flat portion on opposite sides of each of the at least one recess [fig 1, Nishimura]. Regarding claim 6, modified Honda et al teaches the current electrode including additional metal layer [para 38] which is considered to be first layer and disposed on each of the recess. Regarding claim 8, modified Honda et al teaches the current electrode including additional metal layer [para 38] which is considered to be first layer and disposed on flat portion. Regarding claim 10 and 13, Honda et al teaches a battery comprising: a cathode [fig 2 para 62-63]; an anode [para 62 63]; and an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode [fig 2 para 62-63] at least one anode comprising: a current collector 3 (b) [fig 1 para 19-22]; an electrode active material layer (7) [fig 1 para 19-22]]; and an adhesive layer which is considered to the interface layer disposed between the current collector and the electrode active material layer [para 38-39], the electrode active material layer comprising an electrode active material including lithium [para 46], the interface layer comprising a transition metal oxide including oxygen and at least one transition metal (Zinc oxide) [para 39]. Honda et al teaches the interface layer having a surface in contact with the electrode active material layer [para 38-39], but Honda et al does not teach the interface layer having recess. Koh et al teaches the surface of the current electrode having fine projection and recess for improving adhesion [para 84]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the surface of the interface of Honda et al to having fine projection or recess as taught by Koh et al for improving adhesion [para 84]. Or alternatively; Nishimura et al teaches the current electrode having surface with recesses for improving adhesive [fig 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the surface of the interface of Honda et al to having recess as taught by Nishimura et al for improving adhesion [para 84]. Regarding claim 11, the current collector is formed of at least one of copper and aluminum [para 25 37]. Regarding claim 12, modified Honda et al teaches the electrode active material including lithium metal and a lithium alloy [para 49]. Regarding claim 16, modified Honda et al teaches the electrolyte including a solid polymer electrolyte [para 68]. Regarding claim 17, the at least one recess extends along an entire length of the interface layer [fig 1, Nishimura et al]. Regarding claim 18, the at least one recess includes a plurality of recesses formed at discrete locations along a length of the interface layer [fig 1, Nishimura et al]. Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al (PG pub 20120189912), and Nishimura et al (PG Pub 20230107979) or alternatively Koh et al (PG Pub 20180065997) and further in view of Kim et al (PG pub 20210135278). Regarding claim 7, 9, modified Honda et al teaches the current electrode including additional metal layer [para 38], but modified Honda et al does not teach the metal being made of Zinc. Kim et al teaches a metal layer 24 being current collector 21 and electrode material 22 where the metal layer is made of zinc [para 99]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the metal layer of modified Honda et al to be made of Zinc as taught by Kim et al since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07). Regarding claim 9, modified Honda et al teaches the current electrode including additional metal layer [para 38], but modified Honda et al does not teach the metal being made of noble metal Kim et al teaches a metal layer 24 being current collector 21 and electrode material 22 where the metal layer is made of gold [para 99]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the metal layer of modified Honda et al to be made of gold as taught by Kim et al since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07). Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al (PG pub 20120189912), and Nishimura et al (PG Pub 20230107979) or alternatively Koh et al (PG Pub 20180065997) and further in view of Zhao et al (PG Pub 20240076531) Regarding claim 19, modified Honda et al teaches the interface layer as set fort above, but modified Honda et al does not teach the thickness of the adhesive layer. Zhao et al teaches a negative electrode current collector having adhesive layer which has thickness of 508 micron [para 83]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the interface layer of modified Honda et al to have the same thickness of Zhao et al since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm. 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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. /UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12740321
THERMOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULE
4y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12695118
SECONDARY BATTERY
4y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12690289
SOLAR CELL AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12672359
THIN FILM-TYPE SOLAR CELL
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12672419
TANDEM SOLAR CELL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
31%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+39.2%)
3y 4m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 414 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month