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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected fabrication method for a current collector, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202111162977 X, filed on 09/30/2021.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the current collector corresponding to claims 9 through 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
5. Figures 4 and 5 depict a third conductive layer covered by a second conductive layer. This is inconsistent with the requirements of claim 1, which must have the first conductive layer and a second conductive layer disposed on top of it. While Figure 6 depicts the current collector of claim 12, Figures 4 and 5 do not depict the current collectors of claims 9 through 11.
6. 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
7. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 35 of the instant specification refers to both the second and third conductive layers as drawing element 3. The examiner believes that the mention of the third conductive layer in paragraph 35 of the instant specification is erroneous and should refer to the second conductive layer, or the drawing element of the third conductive layer is mistyped. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 is drawn to “The current collector according to claim 1, further comprising a third electrically conductive layer, wherein the third electrically conductive layer being a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer.” The examiner believes the word “is” is missing between the words “structure” and “distributed”. Claims 10-13 are thus objected to for their dependance on claim 9.
9. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 is drawn to the current collector according to claim 9, wherein the second electrically conductive layer is provided on a surface of the third electrically conductive layer away from the support layer. As claim 12 depends on claim 1, the second conductive layer is already disposed on the surface of the first conductive layer. As such, it is unclear if the second conductive layer referred to in claim 12 is the same second conductive layer of claim 1 (suggesting the third conductive layer is disposed between the first and second conductive layers), of if a new conductive layer with the same composition as the second conductive material layer is added on the surface of the third conductive layer. For the purposes of examination, the later interpretation will be used.
10. Appropriate corrections are required.
11. Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The rationale will be further elaborated on when claims 10 and 11 are discussed below in more detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guichard et al (US 20200014032 A1; Henceforth, Guichard).
15. Regarding claim 1, Guichard teaches a current collector ([0011]), comprising: a support layer, the support layer having a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite to each other (a substrate being made of a first material comprising a polymer, [0011]; element 22 in Figure 9, reproduced below, shows it has two sides); a first electrically conductive layer, the first electrically conductive layer being a grid structure distributed on a first surface and/or a second surface of the support layer (a grid in contact with the substrate, being made of a second material comprised of metal particles, [0011]; element 24 in Figure 9). The grid material is selected from a list of electrically conductive metals ([0020]). Additionally, Guichard teaches a second electrically conductive layer, the second electrically conductive layer being provided on a surface of the first electrically conductive layer away from the support layer (a coating layer in contact with the grid, forming a stack of layers superimposed with the substrate in the stacking direction wherein the coating material is comprised of a conductive material and a binder [0022]-[0023]; Figure 9, element 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 9, reproduced from Guichard.
16. Regarding claim 3, Guichard teaches the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the support layer has a thickness in the range of 0.1 μm-20 μm (the substrate has a thickness that is less than or equal to 18 micrometers, [0062]). Guichard teaches a specific example where the substrate has a thickness of 18 microns ([0165]), which lies within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
17. Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the current collector has a thickness in the range of 1 μm to 100 μm.
18. Guichard teaches the current collector according to claim 1, and the entire assembly of the grid and coating layers has a thickness that is less than or equal to 15 micrometers ([0027]) and the substrate has a thickness that is less than or equal to 18 micrometers ([0062]). The examiner notes, that, when summed together, this yields a total thickness that is less than or equal to 33 micrometers. Additionally, Guichard teaches a specific example where the substrate has a thickness of 18 microns ([0165]), and the grid and coating layer combined has a thickness of 3.5 microns ([0168]). Since the current collector has the design as depicted in Figure 9, the total thickness of the current collector is 21.5 micrometers, which lies within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
19. Regarding claim 7, Guichard teaches the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the second electrically conductive layer has a thickness in the range of 0.1 μm to 50 μm (the coating layer has a thickness of less than or equal to 10 micrometers, [0120]). Guichard teaches a specific example where the grid and coating layer combined has a thickness of 3.5 microns ([0168]). Since the current collector has the design as depicted in Figure 9, there is a region of coating where the thickness is 3.5 microns, which lies within the instant range and anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
20. Regarding claim 8, Guichard the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the support layer is a thermoplastic elastomer layer with pores (the first material is selected from a polymer comprising at least one amide functional group, at least one imide group, at least one imide and one amide functional group, poly(phenylene ether ether ketone), poly(ethylene naphthalate, [0029] and thermoplastic polymers, [0072]; the polymer is porous, [0069]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guichard.
26. Regarding claim 2, Guichard teaches the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the first electrically conductive layer has a thickness in the range of 0.1 μm to 50 μm (the grid has a thickness that is less than or equal to 15 micrometers, advantageously less than 5 micrometers [0084]). Guichard teaches a specific example where the grid and coating layer combined has a thickness of 3.5 microns ([0168]).
27. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create the current collector taught by Guichard in claim 1 above, wherein the first electrically conductive layer has a thickness in the range of 0.1 μm to 50 μm. The examiner notes the range taught by Guichard overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the thickness of the first conductive layer from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
28. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guichard in view of Fujita et al (JP 20100102962-A; Henceforth, Fujita).
29. Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the grid structure comprises grid holes, and the grid hole has an area in the range of 0.01 cm2 to 100 cm2.
30. Guichard teaches the current collector of claim 1. Guichard teaches the grid stricture comprises grid holes (Figures 3-8 depict various orientations, above). Guichard does not teach the area of the grid holes.
PNG
media_image2.png
787
1069
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 3-8, reproduced from Guichard.
31. Fujita teaches a secondary battery ([0008]) where the thickness of the active material layers gradually changes in thickness on the positive and negative electrodes ([0009]). Fujita teaches an embodiment, depicted in Figure 5 (reproduced below), which has a grid-like structure ([0030]). Fujita teaches that, by forming irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance ([0030]-[0032]). Fujita further teaches that groove width of the grid-like grooves should be approximately 100 to 500 μm, and the spacing (span) between adjacent grooves should be approximately 100 to 3000 μm ([0034]). The examiner notes that, with the maximum spacing taught by Fujita, the area of the grid-like shape, as shown in Figure 5, would have a resulting area of 0.09 cm2, which overlaps the instant range.
32. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector taught by Guichard with the size of the grid as taught by Fujita, from the same field of endeavor. The examiner notes the range taught by Fujita overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the area of the grid holes from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the area of the of the grid holes is a result effective variable that would be found through routine optimization. Fujita teaches that form irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, so that ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance ([0030]-[0032]). A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that, when designing a grid-like configuration on a current collector, the use of the grid-like configuration of Fujita would have been a reasonable starting point to be optimized for the desired current collector.
33. Regarding claim 6, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 1, wherein the grid structure comprises grid holes, the grid hole is defined by grid walls, and the grid wall has a wall thickness in the range of 0.1 mm to 50 mm.
34. Guichard teaches the current collector of claim 1. Guichard teaches the grid stricture comprises grid holes (Figures 3-8 depict various orientations, above) which has grid walls. Guichard does not teach the wall thickness of the grid walls.
35. Fujita teaches a secondary battery ([0008]) where the thickness of the active material layers gradually changes in thickness on the positive and negative electrodes ([0009]). Fujita teaches an embodiment, depicted in Figure 5 (reproduced below), which has a grid-like structure ([0030]). Fujita teaches that, by forming irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance ([0030]-[0032]). Fujita further teaches that groove width of the grid-like grooves should be approximately 100 to 500 μm, and the spacing (span) between adjacent grooves should be approximately 100 to 3000 μm.
36. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify grid structure of Guichard with the size of the grid walls as taught by Fujita, from the same field of endeavor. The examiner notes the range taught by Fujita overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select thickness of the grid walls from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the span of the grid walls is a result effective variable that would be found through routine optimization. Fujita teaches that form irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, so that ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance ([0030]-[0032]). A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that, when designing a grid-like configuration on a current collector, the use of the grid-like configuration of Fujita would have been a reasonable starting point to be optimized for the desired current collector.
37. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guichard in view of Grosvenor et al. (US 5800946 A; Henceforth Grosvenor) and Fujita.
38. Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 1, further comprising a third electrically conductive layer, wherein the third electrically conductive layer being a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer.
39. Guichard teaches the current collector of claim 1. Guichard does not teach a third electrically conductive layer, wherein the third electrically conductive layer being a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer.
40. Grosvenor teaches an electrode comprising a metal-containing electrically conductive substrate having a first side and an opposing second side, an electrically conductive material disposed on the first side, an electrically conductive layer including a polymer disposed on the second side, and a metallic layer secured to the electrically conductive layer (column 3, lines 37-45). The examiner notes, in this configuration, the electrically conductive material corresponds to the third conductive layer of the instant claim, while the an electrically conductive layer including a polymer corresponds to the first conductive layer, and a metallic layer secured to the electrically conductive layer corresponds to the second conductive layer, respectively. Grosvenor teaches having a configuration where each side surface of the substrate differs is beneficial for protecting the substrate for the conditions located on the positive side of a battery and the other the negative side of a battery, respectively (column 3, lines 52-58). Grosvenor additionally teaches an embodiment where a bipolar plate for a battery contains a grid spaced apart from each side of a conductive electrode element, where one side surface is coated in a positive active material, and the opposite side surface of the substrate is coated with a negative electrode active material (column 4, lines 41-57), which the examiner notes demonstrates as an example of adapting each side surface of the current collector to a respective battery side.
41. Fujita teaches a secondary battery ([0008]) where the thickness of the active material layers gradually changes in thickness on the positive and negative electrodes ([0009]). Fujita teaches an embodiment, depicted in Figure 5 (reproduced below), which has a grid-like structure ([0030]). Fujita teaches that, by forming irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance ([0030]-[0032]).
42. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Guichard by adding a third electrically conductive layer, having a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer, as taught by Grosvenor and Fujita in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to include a third conductive layer disposed on the opposite surface of the substrate as the first and second conductive layers, as taught by Grosvenor, since conductive material layer can be properly configured for use on each side of the battery, (column 3, lines 52-58 and column 4, lines 41-57) . Additionally, there would have been a motivation to modify the structure of the third conductive layer of Grosvenor to the grid-like structure taught by Guichard or Fujita, since by forming irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance (Fujita: [0030]-[0032]).
43. Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 9, wherein the first electrically conductive layer is distributed on the first surface of the support layer, and the third electrically conductive layer is distributed on the second surface of the support layer.
44. Guichard, Grosvenor, and Fujita teach the current collector according to claim 9. Grosvenor teaches the first and third conductive layers (being the electrically conductive layer and the electrically conductive material, respectively) are on opposing sides of the substrate. The examiner notes the first and second side designations of the substrate are arbitrary, and could reasonably be flipped, so long as the first and third layers are on opposing sides of the substrate.
45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Guichard by adding a third electrically conductive layer, having a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer, as taught by Grosvenor and Fujita in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first and third conductive layers are on opposing side surfaces of the substrate, for the reasons described with claim 9, above.
46. Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 9, wherein the first electrically conductive layer is distributed on the second surface of the support layer, and the third electrically conductive layer is distributed on the first surface of the support layer.
47. Guichard, Grosvenor, and Fujita teach the current collector according to claim 9. Grosvenor teaches the first and third conductive layers (being the electrically conductive layer and the electrically conductive material, respectively) are on opposing sides of the substrate. The examiner notes the first and second side designations of the substrate are arbitrary, and could reasonably be flipped, so long as the first and third layers are on opposing sides of the substrate.
48. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Guichard by adding a third electrically conductive layer, having a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer, as taught by Grosvenor and Fujita in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first and third conductive layers are on opposing side surfaces of the substrate, for the reasons described with claim 9, above.
49. Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 9, wherein the second electrically conductive layer is provided on a surface of the third electrically conductive layer away from the support layer.
50. Guichard, Grosvenor and Fujita teach the current collector of claim 9. Guichard teaches that the coating layer (the second electrically conducting layer) is intended to protect the grid (the first electrically conducting layer), specifically by preventing the degradation of the metal particles in contact with corrosive elements, including the electrolyte, the active charges or the solvents ([0143]-[0144]).
51. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Guichard by adding a third electrically conductive layer, having a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer, as taught by Grosvenor and Fujita in the same field of endeavor, the second electrically conductive layer is provided on a surface of the third electrically conductive layer away from the support layer. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the inclusion of a third electrically conducting layer, with a grid-like structure, would need a similar coating to the first electrically conducting layer, to prevent the degradation of the metal particles in contact with corrosive elements, including the electrolyte, the active charges or the solvents, as taught by Guichard ([0143]-[0144]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had recognized that combining the third electrically conductive layer, as motivated by Grosvenor, in a grid-like pattern, as motivated by Fujita, with a coating layer made from the same material as the second electrically conductive material taught by Guichard would have predictably protected the third electrically conducting layer, as it would be performing the same function as it had for the first electrically conducting material. See MPEP 2143 (I) A.
52. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guichard as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Li et al. (US 20210151769 A1, which corresponds to CN 112186195 A, introduced in the applicant’s IDS; Henceforth Li).
53. Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to an electrode sheet, comprising: a current collector according to claim 1 and an electrode slurry layer, the electrode slurry layer being formed on the second electrically conductive layer.
54. Guichard teaches the current collector of claim 1. Guichard teaches the formation of an electrochemical cell formed from stacking a first current collector, a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode and an aluminum current carrier ([0170]), where the positive electrode is made from an active material coated with carbon and a binder ([0171]). Guichard does not explicitly teach the positive electrode is applied as a slurry to the current collector, to make the electrode sheet of the instant claim.
55. Li teaches a positive electrode piece, including a current collector and an electrode active material arranged on at least one surface of the current collector, wherein the current collector has a support layer, a conductive layer made of an aluminum or aluminum alloy, and a primer layer including a conductive material and a binder, arranged between the current collector and the electrode active material layer ([0031], [0133], and Figure 5, reproduced below, where elements 102 are the conductive layer, 12 is the primer layer, 10 is the current collector and 11 is the active material layer). The examiner notes the conductive layer corresponds to the first conductive layer of the instant claim and the primer layer corresponds to the second electrically conductive layer. Li teaches the primer layers and the active material layers are added as a slurry, and dried ([0178]-[0179]).
PNG
media_image3.png
329
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, reproduced from Li.
56. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an electrode sheet by combining the current collector of Guichard by adding an electrode slurry layer on the second electrically conductive layer, as taught by Li in the in the same field of endeavor. Li demonstrates precedent in the art for coating various layers on a current collector, including a conductive primer layer on a conductive layer and an electrode active material on the primer layer, sequentially, to form an electrode piece ([0175]-[0179]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the positive active material of Guichard could have been added to the second electrically conductive layer as a slurry to form an electrode sheet in a predictable manner with a high likelihood of success, as Guichard would be following a technique well known in the art, as evidenced by Li. See MPEP 2143 (I) C.
57. Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guichard in view of Lam et al. (CA 2772087 C; Henceforth Lam) and Fujita.
58. Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 1, further comprising a third electrically conductive layer, wherein the third electrically conductive layer being a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer.
59. Guichard teaches the current collector of claim 1. Guichard does not teach a third electrically conductive layer, wherein the third electrically conductive layer being a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer.
60. Lam teaches an electrode for an electrical storage device comprising a current collector, a first electroactive material, a second electroactive material, and an electrically conductive mat (page 2, lines 21-26), wherein the layers can be provided in any order or arrangement on the current collector (page 3, lines 8-11). The mat consists of one or more layers, coatings, or regions comprising at least one of the first or second electroactive materials (page 3, lines 21-23), the first electroactive material may be selected from a group that contains, among others, Ni, Co, Mn, Ag, Al, Fe, Zn, Cd, Pb, or Sn (page 4, lines 9-15), and the second electroactive material can be selected from, among others, Nb, Hf, Ti, Ta, Fe, Zn, Sn, Ru, Ag, Pt, Ir, Pb, Mo, Ni, W or Co (page 4, lines 19-27). The examiner notes the embodiment defined by the stack of the first electroactive material, the electrically conductive mat and second electroactive material (page 3, lines 25-27) correspond to the first, second and third electrically conductive layers of the instant claim. Lam does not teach that each layer has a grid-like configuration.
61. Fujita teaches a secondary battery ([0008]) where the thickness of the active material layers gradually changes in thickness on the positive and negative electrodes ([0009]). Fujita teaches an embodiment, depicted in Figure 5 (reproduced below), which has a grid-like structure ([0030]). Fujita teaches that, by forming irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance ([0030]-[0032]).
62. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Guichard by adding a third electrically conductive layer, having a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer, as taught by Lam and Fujita in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation to utilize a three layered conductive composite disposed on a single side surface of a current collector as taught by Lam, since the incorporation of an electrically conductive mat, utilized with a combination of two different electroactive materials, can impart improved life cycle characteristics when one of the electroactive materials has a higher energy density and lower rate capability than the other electroactive material (page 9, lines 3-9). Additionally, there would have been a motivation to modify the structure of the conductive layers of Lam to the grid-like structure taught by Guichard or Fujita, since by forming irregularities on the surfaces of the active material layers to increase their surface area, ions can easily penetrate from the separator side into the active material layers (increasing the current density), and the number of reaction interfaces between ions and active material can be increased, making charge transfer smoother and suppressing the increase in resistance (Fujita: [0030]-[0032]).
63. Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is drawn to the current collector according to claim 9, wherein the first electrically conductive layer is a metal component, and the third electrically conductive layer is a metal component.
64. Guichard, Lam, and Fujita teach the current collector of claim 9. Lam teaches the first electroactive material (corresponding to the first conductive layer of the instant claim) may be selected from a group that contains, among others, Ni, Co, Mn, Ag, Al, Fe, Zn, Cd, Pb, or Sn (page 4, lines 9-15), and the second electroactive material (corresponding to the third conductive layer of the instant claim) can be selected from, among others, Nb, Hf, Ti, Ta, Fe, Zn, Sn, Ru, Ag, Pt, Ir, Pb, Mo, Ni, W or Co (page 4, lines 19-27).
65. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the current collector of Guichard by adding a third electrically conductive layer, having a grid structure distributed on the first surface or the second surface of the support layer, as taught by Lam and Fujita in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first and third conductive layers have a metal component, for the reasons outlined in claim 9 above.
Conclusion
66. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
67. 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.
68. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
69. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights