DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 18-19 in the reply filed on August 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 18-19 in the reply filed on August 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant considered there to be no serious burden of search. This is not found persuasive.
A bare argument that there is no serious burden of search is not held to be an effective traversal of the previous restriction requirement. Applicant provides no other factual basis for traversal other than simply stating that Applicant considers there to be no serious burden of search. Furthermore, as there were three different groups set forth in the previous restriction it is less clear as to how a burden does not exist.
As set forth in the previous Office Action, the Examiner presented distinction between the composite current collector of Group I, the method for manufacturing a composite current collector of Group II and a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly of Group III.
As to the product of Group I and method of Group II, it was presented that the product can be made by materially different processes such as CVD, sputtering, lamination, liquid coatings, melt coating, etc.
As to the product of Group I and method of Group III, it was presented that the product can be used as a standalone composite, or a composite for manufacturing other devices such as fuel cells, capacitors, actuators, sensors, etc. Group I is to a current collector. Group III is to a method for manufacturing electrode assemblies. Group III may not require the particulars of the current collector for patentability as it recites additional specific features to both embodiments (stacking and winding) and orientations of such therein which are specific to the method wherein particular electrode plates and layers are in contact with each other. The collector can have utility by itself or in other combinations (capacitors, fuel cells, electrochemical actuators, sensors, etc.). The burden of search to the collector focuses on materials, porosity, structure whereas the method claims focuses on the electrode assembly and the incorporation of a current collector in a particular stacking or winding process having particular layers of the array in particular contact with each other, which adds to the burden of search.
As to the method of Group II and method of Group III, it was established that Group II is to a method of manufacturing the composite current collector itself, reciting particular steps pertaining to the manufacture of the composite current collector, steps and features of such being absent from the method of Group III. Group III is to a method of manufacturing an electrode assembly including a composite current collector but is not limited or bound by the same method steps of Group II and further recites particular assembly manufacturing steps which are not requisite nor applicable to the method of Group II. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
The restriction further presented that the inventions of Groups I-III also have divergent classification (Group I to H01M4/667, Group II to H01M10/04, Group III to H01M10/0431).
Lastly, the restriction presented that each of Groups I-III define different fields of search including searching different classes/subclasses, employing different search queries specific to the different invention as more particularly state on page 6 of the previous Office Action, incorporated herein.
As applicant has not provided a sufficient traversal of the restriction requirement (nothing that a statement that there is no serious burden of search, by itself, is not a persuasive argument) and as the basis for restriction was set forth in the previous Office Action under 35 U.S.C. § 121 with sufficient reasoning, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed December 11, 2023; October 17, 2024; April 21, 2025 and May 28, 2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received December 11, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received December 11, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the active material layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamaguchi (JP2011-222215A).
As to claim 1, Hamaguchi discloses a composite current collector in Fig. 1, comprising:
an organic support layer (separator layer); and
an electrically conductive layer (porous metal layer) arranged on one surface of the organic support layer, wherein the organic support layer of Hamaguchi is explicitly disclosed to have an air permeability (Gurley value) of about 200-500 s/100mL (para. [0018]).
As to claim 2, as noted above the organic support layer of Hamaguchi is explicitly disclosed to have an air permeability (Gurley value) of about 200-500 s/100mL (para. [0018]).
As to claim 4, the organic support layer of Hamaguchi is a polyolefin such as polypropylene or polyethylene and can be a single layer or multilayer composite film (para. [0015]).
As to claim 5, the thickness of the metal layer is 1 micron or less, with specific examples including 0.5 mm (paras. [0007], [0023], [0052]).
As to claim 10, Hamaguchi teaches of an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode and the resin/metal layer which is disposed opposed to the negative electrode. Accordingly, Hamaguchi discloses an electrode assembly comprising
First and second electrode plates (negative positive electrode), where the first electrode plate, negative electrode is in contact with the metal layer of the resin layer/metal layer composite thereby defining an electrode comprising the negative electrode active material, metal layer, resin layer in that order. The resin layer is then arranged in close contact with the active material layer of the positive electrode layer (paras. [0006], [0065]).
As to claim 18, Hamaguchi discloses a secondary battery according to claim 10 discussed above (para. [0033], for example, see also Figs. 1-2).
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (CN113013546A).
As to claim 1, Cheng discloses a composite current collector in Fig. 1, comprising:
an organic support layer (separator layer 1); and
an electrically conductive layer (porous metal layer 4) arranged on one surface of the organic support layer, wherein the organic support layer of Cheng is explicitly disclosed to have an air permeability (Gurley value) of about 223-243 s/100mL (Table 1).
As to claim 2, as noted above the organic support layer of Cheng is explicitly disclosed to have an air permeability (Gurley value) of 223-243 s/100mL (Table 1).
As to claim 4, the organic support layer of Cheng is a polyolefin such as polypropylene or polyethylene and can be a single layer or multilayer composite film (paras. [0063], [0089]).
As to claim 5, the thickness of the metal layer is, by example, in Table 1, is 2 or 3 mm (paras. [0152]-[0160]).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura (WO2009/157263A).
As to claim 1, Nishimura discloses a composite current collector in Fig. 1, comprising:
an organic support layer (separator layer 3); and
an electrically conductive layer 2 arranged on one surface of the organic support layer, wherein the organic support layer of Nishimura is explicitly disclosed to have an air permeability of 170 s/100mL (see machine translation - pages 4-5 and Example 3 on page 13).
As to claim 2, as noted above the organic support layer of Nishimura is explicitly disclosed to have an air permeability of 170 s/100mL (see Example 3 on page 13 of the machine translation).
As to claim 4, the organic support layer of Nishimura is a polyolefin such as polypropylene or polyethylene and can be a single layer or multilayer composite film (see Example 3 on page 13 of the machine translation and page 5 of the machine translation).
As to claim 5, the thickness of the metal layer is, by example, 1 mm and can be set to 1-2 mm (see page 8 of the machine translation).
As to claim 10, Nishimura discloses an electrode assembly, comprising: a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate, wherein one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate comprises a composite current collector 2/3 for electrode 1 and 6/3 for electrode 2 and according to claim 1 and an active material layer 1 arranged on the electrically conductive layer 2 and active material layer 5 arranged on the conductive layer 6 of the composite current collector, and
the organic support layer 3 of one of the first electrode plate 1 and the second electrode 2 plate is arranged in close contact with an active material layer of the other one of the first electrode plate 1 and the second electrode plate 2.
As to claim 11, Nishimura discloses an electrode assembly, comprising: a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate, wherein the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate each comprises a composite current collector 2/3 for electrode 1 and 6/3 for electrode 2 and according to claim 1 and an active material layer 1 arranged on the electrically conductive layer 2 and active material layer 5 arranged on the conductive layer 6 of the composite current collector, and
the organic support layer 3 the first electrode plate 1 is arranged in close contact with an active material layer of the other one of the second electrode plate 2 and the organic support layer 3 of the second electrode 2 plate is arranged in close contact with an active material layer of the first electrode plate 1 (Fig. 1).
As to claim 18, Nishimura discloses a secondary battery according to claim 10 discussed above (abstract, for example).
As to claim 19, Nishimura discloses a secondary battery according to claim 11 discussed above (abstract, for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN103950239B) in view of Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0280404).
As to claim 1, Ma discloses a composite current collector in Fig. 1, comprising:
an organic support layer (separator 2); and
an electrically conductive layer (current collector 1) arranged on one surface of the organic support layer 2.
As to claim 3, the graphene conductive layer has pores and a porosity of 60% (para. [0029]).
As to claim 4, the support layer 2 is a material such as polyethylene (para. [0027]).
Ma does not teach of the organic support layer 2 having an air permeability greater than or equal to 50 s/100mL (claim 1) or in a range of 50 s/100ml to 2000 s/100ml (claim 2).
Ma does teach that the support layer 2 is a porous polyethylene layer having a thickness of 20 microns and a porosity of 60% (para. [0029]). Ma further teaches that the organic layer acts as a separator (para. [0029]). To that effect it would have been of routine skill in the art to modify the polyethylene layer of Ma to have a suitable air permeability to function as a separator that functions as a separator while also is sufficiently permeable for electrolyte retention.
For example, Abe, drawn to the same field of endeavor to non-aqueous electrolyte battery systems, recognized that a separator should have a certain degree of air permeability (Gurley value) ranging from 50 s/100cc to 1000 s/100cc as such a range was recognized to design a separator layer having sufficient mechanical strength and ion conductivity (para. [0077]). Thus the concept of modifying the porous polyethylene layer of Ma, which is disclosed by Ma to function as a separator, to have a suitable air permeability in the range from 50 s/100cc to 1000 s/100cc as taught by Abe would have provided for a separator film having sufficient mechanical strength and ion conductivity. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN103950239B) in view of Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0280404) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (WO20200238225A).
Ma does not explicitly teach of the electrically conductive layer having a thickness from 200nm-3000nm (claim 5).
As to the thickness of the electrically conductive graphene layer, Ma teaches that the thickness can range from 0.3nm-10mm (paras. [0008]; [0011]). 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, Liu discloses composite current collector wherein the collector includes a conductive layer 102 and an underlying polymer supporting layer 101. Liu teaches that the conductive layer can be a range of thicknesses and can be an array of conventional materials including graphene. For example, Liu teaches of the conductive layer can be as thin as 30nm and as thick as 3mm, preferably in a range from 300-500nm (paras. [0037] and [0040]). Liu teaches that it was of routine skill in the art to select or tune the appropriate thickness of the conductive layer to have high conductive and current collecting performances along with sufficient mechanical properties to prevent breaking. Thus tuning of the thickness to a desired operable range was known and of routine skill in the art to achieve a thickness having high mechanical stability and operating stability.
Liu itself recognized selecting the thickness of the metal current collector in a suitable range which can better enable the support layer to perform its function of heat preservation and heat storage for the battery cell and lithium-ion secondary battery, and improve the low temperature performance of the lithium-ion secondary battery; at the same time, it can also ensure that the support layer has high mechanical strength, and is not easy to break during processing and use, so as to provide good support and protection for the conductive layer, and improve the mechanical stability and working stability of the composite current collector (para. [0049]). Liu further recognized providing thinner collector layers can reduce the weight of the battery while still achieving good conductivity and mechanical stability, thereby improving energy density of the battery (para. [0036]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the thickness of the electrically conductive layer in a range from 200nm to 3000nm as encompassed by Ma and further described in Liu since the concept of selecting the thickness to a desired operable range was known and of routine skill in the art to achieve a thickness having high mechanical stability and operating stability and improved energy density. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO2014157987A) in view of Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0280404).
As to claim 1, Choi discloses a composite current collector in Fig. 2, comprising:
an organic support layer (separator 31, 33); and
an electrically conductive layer (current collector 50, 60) arranged on one surface of the organic support layer 31, 33.
As to claim 10, Choi teaches of an electrode assembly, comprising: a first electrode plate 1 and a second electrode plate 2, wherein one of the first electrode plate 1 and the second electrode plate 2 comprises a composite current collector according to claim 1 and an active material layer 13a/b, 23a/b arranged on the electrically conductive layer 50 or 60 of the composite current collector, and
the organic support layer 31 or 33 of the one of the first electrode plate 1 and the second electrode 2 plate is arranged in close contact with an active material layer of the other one of the first electrode plate 1 and the second electrode plate 2.
As to claim 11, Choi discloses n electrode assembly, comprising: a first electrode plate 1 and a second electrode plate 2, wherein the first electrode plate 1 and the second electrode plate 2 each comprise a composite current collector (31/50; 33/60) according to claim 1 and an active material layer 13a/b and 23a/b arranged on the electrically conductive layer of the composite current collector, the organic support layer 31 of the first electrode plate 1 is arranged in close contact with the active material layer 23a/b of the second electrode plate 2, and the organic support layer 33 of the second electrode plate 2 is arranged in close contact with the active material layer 13a/b of the first electrode 1 (Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 18, Choi discloses the electrode assembly of claim 10 above, in a secondary battery (Examples and page 1 of the machine translation).
As to claim 19, Choi discloses the electrode assembly of claim 11 above, in a secondary battery (Examples and page 1 of the machine translation).
Choi does not teach of the organic support layer having an air permeability greater than or equal to 50 s/100mL (claim 1, 10, 11, 18 and 19) or in a range of 50 s/100ml to 2000 s/100ml (claim 2).
Choi does teach that the support layer 2 is a porous polypropylene or polyethylene layer. Choi further teaches that the organic layer acts as a separator. To that effect it would have been of routine skill in the art to modify the polyethylene layer of Choi to have a suitable air permeability to function as a separator that functions as a separator while also is sufficiently permeable for electrolyte retention.
For example, Abe, drawn to the same field of endeavor to non-aqueous electrolyte battery systems, recognized that a separator should have a certain degree of air permeability (Gurley value) ranging from 50 s/100cc to 1000 s/100cc as such a range was recognized to design a separator layer having sufficient mechanical strength and ion conductivity (para. [0077]). Thus the concept of modifying the porous polypropylene or polyethylene layer of Choi, which is disclosed by Choi to function as a separator, to have a suitable air permeability in the range from 50 s/100cc to 1000 s/100cc as taught by Abe would have provided for a separator film having sufficient mechanical strength and ion conductivity. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi (JP2011-222215A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0126555).
Hamaguchi does not explicitly teach of a primer layer between an active material layer and the electrically conductive layer, the primer layer comprising a binder and conductive agent.
Kwon, drawn to the same field of endeavor, secondary battery designs and layered structures. Kwon recognized that it was known in the art to utilize a primer layer (comprising a conductive material and a binder, para. [0063], for example) between the current collector layer and active material layer to provide both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
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 composite current collector of Hamaguchi to further include a primer layer to the electrically conductive layer as taught by Kwon since it would have predictably provided both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN113013546A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0126555).
Cheng does not explicitly teach of a primer layer between an active material layer and the electrically conductive layer, the primer layer comprising a binder and conductive agent.
Kwon, drawn to the same field of endeavor, secondary battery designs and layered structures. Kwon recognized that it was known in the art to utilize a primer layer (comprising a conductive material and a binder, para. [0063], for example) between the current collector layer and active material layer to provide both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
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 composite current collector of Cheng to further include a primer layer to the electrically conductive layer as taught by Kwon since it would have predictably provided both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (WO2009/157263A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0126555).
Nishimura does not explicitly teach of a primer layer between an active material layer and the electrically conductive layer, the primer layer comprising a binder and conductive agent.
Kwon, drawn to the same field of endeavor, secondary battery designs and layered structures. Kwon recognized that it was known in the art to utilize a primer layer (comprising a conductive material and a binder, para. [0063], for example) between the current collector layer and active material layer to provide both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
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 composite current collector of Nishimura to further include a primer layer to the electrically conductive layer as taught by Kwon since it would have predictably provided both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN103950239B) in view of Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0280404) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0126555).
Ma does not explicitly teach of a primer layer between an active material layer and the electrically conductive layer, the primer layer comprising a binder and conductive agent.
Kwon, drawn to the same field of endeavor, secondary battery designs and layered structures. Kwon recognized that it was known in the art to utilize a primer layer (comprising a conductive material and a binder, para. [0063], for example) between the current collector layer and active material layer to provide both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
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 composite current collector of Ma to further include a primer layer to the electrically conductive layer as taught by Kwon since it would have predictably provided both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO2014157987A) in view of Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0280404) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0126555).
Choi does not explicitly teach of a primer layer between an active material layer and the electrically conductive layer, the primer layer comprising a binder and conductive agent.
Kwon, drawn to the same field of endeavor, secondary battery designs and layered structures. Kwon recognized that it was known in the art to utilize a primer layer (comprising a conductive material and a binder, para. [0063], for example) between the current collector layer and active material layer to provide both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the (Choi to further include a primer layer to the electrically conductive layer as taught by Kwon since it would have predictably provided both good adhesion and electron conductivity between the active material layer and the current collector layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the electrically conductive layer comprising a pore-making transition layer, a thickening layer, a functional layer and a protective layer that are stacked in sequence from the organic support layer.
The structure is generally embodied in Fig. 2 as shown below, the following not meant to further limit claims 6-8 beyond that which the claims explicitly recite but is provided to support the statement of allowable subject matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
According to the instant invention, the ion channel can be formed on the electrically conductive layer well and the thickness of the electrically conductive layer can be adjusted easily. In addition, the protective layer can prevent the electrically conductive layer from chemical corrosion, mechanical damage or other damages, to ensure that the composite current collector has a high working stability and a long service life. In addition, the protective layer can also enhance the mechanical strength of the composite current collector.
The references cited above, being held to be the closest cited prior art of record, neither teach, suggest nor render obvious the specific electrically conductive layer of at least claim 6. Claims 7-8, dependent upon claim 6, are allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bauer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0181493) discloses a composite electrode comprising a separator layer and an electron conducting layer but the air permeability is not specified.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights