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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 22 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 July 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 28 November 2023, 5 September 2024, 2 June 2025 and 2 October 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1, 4 and 5 appear to be missing intended reference characters.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: line I-I (see, figure 1 and paragraph [0020]) and 15 (see, paragraphs [0018, 0038]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities – see objection in the Drawings section above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities. The claim recites the limitation: “at least one of copper, gold, silver, magnesium, zinc, titanium, and nickel, or stainless steel” (lines 2-3).
The limitation should be edited to read: “at least one of copper, gold, silver, magnesium, zinc, titanium, nickel and stainless steel”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities. The claim recites the limitation: “An negative electrode” (line 1).
The proper indefinite article is “a”.
The limitation should be edited to read: “A negative electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second polymer layer being disposed on a side of the metal layer far away from the first polymer layer" on lines 4-5.
The term “far away” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far away” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As it is not clear by what distance the second polymer layer must be away from the first polymer layer to be considered “far”, the scope of the claim is undefined.
For the purposes of examination and in view of the specification, a second polymer layer that is away from the first polymer layer will be considered to meet the limitation of lines 4-5.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the through-hole" on lines 2-3.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 defines “a plurality of through-holes” (line 7).
The use of the definite article with the singular form “through-hole” on lines 2-3 in claim 2 creates ambiguity as to whether the limitations of claim 2 apply to a single, specific, but unidentified through-hole or whether they apply to “the plurality of through-holes”. As such, the scope of claim 2 is undefined.
For the purposes of examination, either interpretation will be considered to meet the claim.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the through-hole" on line 1.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3.
Claim 3 is directed to “a plurality of through-holes” (line 1).
The use of the definite article with the singular form “through-hole” on line 1 in claim 4 creates ambiguity as to whether the limitations of claim 4 apply to a single, specific, but unidentified through-hole or whether they apply to “the plurality of through-holes”. As such, the scope of claim 4 is undefined.
For the purposes of examination, either interpretation will be considered to meet the claim.
Claims 15 and 16 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the through-hole" on line 1.
Claim 15 depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 defines “a plurality of through-holes” (line 7).
The use of the definite article with the singular form “through-hole” on line 1 in claim 15 creates ambiguity as to whether the limitations of claim 15 apply to a single, specific, but unidentified through-hole or whether they apply to “the plurality of through-holes”. As such, the scope of claim 15 is undefined.
For the purposes of examination, either interpretation will be considered to meet the claim.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 defines a “section of the through hole along a plane on which the first or second polymer is disposed” (lines 1-2) and also requires that the section gradually increase in a direction from the metal layer to the first polymer layer/second polymer layer (lines 4-6).
By the definition of the claim, the “section of the though-hole” is understood to be a 2-dimensional object, which is a cross-section of the through-hole along a plane on which either the first or second polymer is disposed.
The plane on which the first polymer film is disposed is one side surface of the metal layer. As such, the corresponding “section of the through-hole” is understood to be on the plane of the one side surface of the metal layer.
In the instant specification, “a direction from the metal layer to the first polymer layer” is normal to the plane of the one side surface of the metal layer (figures 1-6).
As such the claim poses a contradiction, because the section is only defined as an object in the plane of the one side surface of the metal layer and yet is required to “increase” away from the plane.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to have been intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in figure 3 and described in paragraph [0037] of the specification. Specifically, it appears that the section that gradually increases from the metal layer to each polymer layer is a “longitudinal section”, which is a section of the through-hole in the thickness direction of the current collector rather than along the plane on which the first/second polymer layer is disposed.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. 111430723, hereinafter Zhang. (A machine translation of Zhang is provided with the current office action).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a current collector (1) (paragraph [0045] and figure 1).
The current collector (1) comprises a first polymer layer (101) (paragraphs [0045, 0049]).
The current collector (1) further comprises a metal layer (102) (paragraphs [0045, 0046]). The metal layer (102) is disposed on a side of the first polymer layer (101) (figure 1).
The current collector (1) further comprises a second polymer layer (103) (paragraphs [0045, 0049]). The second polymer layer (103) is disposed on a side of the metal layer (102) away from the first polymer layer (101) (figure 1).
The current collector (1) has a plurality of through-holes (3) which penetrate the current collector (1) in a direction from the first polymer layer (101) to the second polymer layer (103) (paragraph [0045] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches a lithium layer (2) deposited in the through-holes (3) (paragraphs [0045, 0050] and figure 1). Therefore, the lithium layer (2) is deposited on an inner side wall of the through-holes (3). Lithium is an electrically conductive material.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches that the plurality of through-holes (3) are distributed in an array form (figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches that the plurality of through-holes (3) have an aperture size in the range 0.2 µm to 3 µm (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches a lithium metal layer (2) filled in the through-holes (3) and thus disposed in the metal layer (102) (paragraphs [0045, 0050] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches in an example that each through-hole (3) has a diameter of 0.2 µm (200 nm) (paragraph [0058]). Therefore, a thickness of the lithium layer (2) in one through-hole (3) is 200 nm.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches that the current collector (1) includes a lithium replenishment material (2). The lithium replenishment material (2) is filled in the through-holes (3) (paragraph [0045] and figure 1). As such, the lithium replenishment material (2) is disposed in both of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches a first polymer layer (101) and a second polymer layer (103).
By virtue of its contact with the metal layer (102), the side of each of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103) facing the metal layer (102) is understood to have higher “electronic conductivity” than the side of each layer facing away from the metal layer.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches that a material forming the metal layer (102) is copper or nickel (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches that a cross-sectional shape of the through-holes (3) may be a circle, an ellipse, a square, a rhombus or a rectangle (paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, the 3-dimensional “aperture shape” of each through-hole (3) is understood to be a cylinder, a cubic tube or a cuboid tube.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches a negative electrode comprising the current collector of claim 1 (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery (“an electrochemical energy storage device”) comprising a positive electrode and the negative electrode of claim 18 (paragraphs [0052-0055]).
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. 208923279, hereinafter Lai. (A machine translation of Lai is provided with the current office action).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a current collector. The current collector comprises a metal foil (1) having a first surface and a second surface. An insulating layer A (3) is laminated onto the first surface and the second surface of the metal foil (1) (paragraphs [0049, 0064] and figures 1 and 2). The material of the insulating layer A (3) is a polymer (paragraph [0033]). The first surface and the second surface are opposite surfaces of the metal foil (1) (paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, Lai’s current collector includes a metal foil (1) disposed on a side of a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer disposed on a side of the metal foil (1) away from the first polymer layer.
The current collector has a plurality of channels (2) which penetrate the current collector in a direction from the first polymer layer to the second polymer layer (paragraph [0065] and figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, Lai teaches a lithium layer (5) deposited on an inner side wall of the channels (2) (paragraphs [0032, 0069] and figure 4). Lithium is an electrically conductive material.
Regarding claim 3, Lai teaches that the plurality of channels (2) are distributed in an array form (figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Lai teaches in specific examples that the plurality of channels (2) have a width (“aperture size”) of 6 µm and 9 µm (paragraph [0072, 0075]).
Regarding claim 5, Lai teaches a lithium layer (5) deposited in the metal foil (1) (paragraphs [0032, 0069] and figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Lai teaches that the channels (2) are filled with lithium (5) (paragraph [0040]). Therefore, the lithium is understood to be in the first polymer layer and in the second polymer layer.
Additionally, Lai further teaches coating oppositely arranged inner walls of the channels (2) with an insulating layer B (4) (paragraph [0031] and figures 2 and 4). The material of insulating layer B may be the same as the material of insulating layer A (paragraph [0034]) and as such insulating layer B may be considered part of the first polymer layer or of the second polymer layer. Under this configuration, the lithium would be in either the first polymer layer or the second polymer layer.
Regarding claim 11, Lai teaches that each of the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer is an insulating layer (paragraph [0014]).
By virtue of its contact with the metal layer, the side of each layer facing the metal layer is understood to have higher “electronic conductivity” than the side of each layer facing away from the metal layer.
Regarding claim 12, Lai teaches that each of the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer is an insulating layer (paragraph [0014]). Therefore, a side of each of the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer away from the metal foil (1) is insulating.
Regarding claim 14, Lai teaches that a material forming the metal foil (1) is copper, titanium or nickel (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Lai teaches that a cross-sectional shape of the channels (2) is a rectangle (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, the 3-dimensional “aperture shape” of each channel (2) is understood to be a cuboid tube.
Regarding claim 18, Lai teaches a negative electrode comprising the current collector of claim 1 (paragraphs [0040, 0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Lai teaches a lithium metal battery (“an electrochemical energy storage device”) comprising a positive electrode and the negative electrode of claim 18 (paragraphs [0045, 0046]).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 208923279, hereinafter Lai as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0190346, hereinafter Jang.
Regarding claim 7, Lai teaches a negative electrode current collector for a lithium metal battery (paragraph [0046]).
Lai fails to teach a flame retardant layer on the anode current collector.
Jang teaches a lithium metal battery and a flame-retardant layer on the anode current collector (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flame-retardant layer on a side of the first polymer layer or the second polymer layer facing away from the metal layer in Lai’s current collector for the purpose of preventing internal thermal runaway and combustion processes in the battery.
Regarding claim 8, Lai as modified by Jang teaches that the flame-retardant layer has a thickness in the range 2 nm to 100 µm (abstract).
The optimum range for the thickness of the flame-retardant layer in the combination of Lai and Jang overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 10 nm to 1 µm . It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 111430723, hereinafter Zhang, with evidence from CAS SciFinder. (Relevant compound density data from CAS SciFinder is provided with the current office action).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches that the lithium replenishment material (2) is filled in the through-holes (3) (paragraph [0045]). Zhang further teaches that the porosity of the current collector (1) is 10%-40% (paragraph [0048]). Therefore, the percentage by volume of the lithium replenishment material (2) in each of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103) is in the range 10%-40%.
The lithium replenishment material (2) is metallic lithium (paragraph [0050]). Each of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103) includes 60% to 90% by weight conductive agent and 10% to 40% by weight polymer binder (paragraph [0049]).
Using the densities of the constituent materials, it is possible to compute the percentage by weight of the lithium in each of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103).
For example, in a polymer layer with a porosity of 10% and including 90 wt% carbon black (density 1.8 g/cm3) and 10 wt% polyvinylidene fluoride (density 1.78 g/cm3), the weight percentage of lithium (density 0.53 g/cm3) filling the through-holes (3) would be about 3 %. (Densities based on CAS SciFinder property information for the relevant compounds).
It has thus been demonstrated that Zhang teaches an overlapping range for the weight percentage of lithium replenishment material in each of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103). It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 111430723, hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches that the total thickness of the current collector (1) is in the range 5 µm to 30 µm (paragraph [0047]). Zhang further teaches that each of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103) has a thickness in the range 2 µm to 10 µm (paragraph [0047]).
Zhang does not provide an explicit teaching for the thickness range of the metal layer (102).
However, given the overall thickness of the current collector (1) and the thicknesses of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103), a thickness for the metal layer (102) may be computed.
For example, taking the low end values of the permitted ranges – total thickness of 5 µm and a thickness for each of the first polymer layer (101) and the second polymer layer (103) of 2 µm would result in a metal layer (102) thickness of 1 µm.
It has thus been demonstrated that Zhang teaches an overlapping range for the thickness of the metal layer (102). It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 208923279, hereinafter Lai as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0123353, hereinafter Fu.
Regarding claim 16, Lai teaches channels (2) with micron-sized openings intended for the deposition of lithium during cycling of a lithium-metal battery (paragraphs [0016, 0026, 0027]).
Lai fails to teach that a cross-section of the channels (2) gradually increases in a direction from the metal layer to the first polymer layer or from the metal layer to the second polymer layer.
Fu teaches micron-sized pores (101) intended for the deposition of lithium during cycling of a lithium-metal battery (abstract, paragraph [0007]). The pore walls are disposed at an angle such that the cross-section of each pore increases towards its surface opening (paragraph [0009] figures 2-5). Fu teaches that this configuration provides a larger area for the deposition of lithium (paragraph [0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Lai’s channel walls at an angle such that a cross-section of the channels (2) gradually increases from the metal layer towards the first polymer layer or from the metal layer towards the second polymer layer for the purpose of increasing the area available for the deposition of lithium.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. 208923279, hereinafter Lai as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0274148, hereinafter Xiao.
Regarding claim 20, Lai teaches that the current collector has a porosity in the range 30% to 80% (paragraph [0021]). In specific examples, Lai teaches porosities of 65% and 55% (paragraphs [0072 and 0075]).
Lai teaches that the current collector has a thickness up to 506 µm (paragraphs [0019, 0035]).
In a specific example, Lai teaches an areal capacity of 6 mAh/cm2 for the negative electrode (paragraph [0081]).
Lai fails to teach the areal capacity of the positive electrode.
Xiao teaches cathode areal capacities for lithium metal cells in the range 2 to 10 mAh/cm2 and anode to cathode areal capacity ratios in the range 1 to 5 (paragraph [0138]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an areal capacity for the positive electrode in the range 3 mAh/cm2 to 6 mAh/cm2 when the negative electrode areal capacity is 6 mAh/cm2 for the purpose of ensuring sufficient lithium within the cell.
For a porosity of 65% and a positive electrode areal capacity of 5 mAh/cm2, any thickness d greater than 39 µm would satisfy the claimed formula.
The optimum range of Lai as modified by Xiao for the cathode areal capacity and the current collector thickness overlap the instant application's corresponding ranges. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/LILIA NEDIALKOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights