CTNF 18/540,976 CTNF 96363 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Miyatake et al. (JP 2010092664 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 12/15/2023) (citations herein made in reference to the English machine translation attached to IDS dated 12/15/2023) . Regarding Claim 1 , Miyatake discloses a current collector (11) comprising: a first metal layer (metallic layer, 1a), a conductor layer (conductive plastic layer, 2a), a second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b), and a third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) laminated in this order (Figure 2E, [0050]). Miyatake further discloses that the first metal layer (metallic layer, 1a), the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b), and the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) comprise a first metal, a second metal, and a third metal, respectively (Figure 2E, [0050, 0062]). Miyatake further discloses that the first metal, the second metal, and the third metal may all be different metals [0062]. Miyatake further discloses that the third metal may be copper [0062]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met. Regarding Claim 2 , Miyatake further discloses that the first metal may be aluminum [0062]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met. Regarding Claim 3 , Miyatake further discloses that the second metal may be chromium (Cr) which is alloyed with stainless steel and nickel [0062]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met. Regarding Claim 6 , Miyatake further discloses that the total thickness of each of the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) and the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) is between 0.01 µm and 20 µm (Figure 2E, [0064]). The examiner notes that the term “a thickness” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that if each of the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) and the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) have a total thickness of 10 µm (for example), a thickness of the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) may be selected to be the total thickness of the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) (i.e., 10 µm) and a thickness of the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) may be selected to be half of the total thickness of the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) (i.e., 5 µm), in which case a thickness of the third metal layer is greater than a thickness of the second metal layer. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met. Regarding Claim 7 , Miyatake further discloses that the total thickness of the first metal layer (metallic layer, 1a) may be 5µm (Figure 2E, [0064, 0165]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met. Regarding Claim 11 , Miyatake further discloses a battery (bipolar secondary battery, 10) comprising: the current collector (11) according to Claim 1; and at least one power generation element (single cell layer, 19) (Figure 1, [0015-0017]). Miyatake further discloses that the at least one power generation element (single cell layer, 19) includes a positive electrode layer (13), a negative electrode layer (15) disposed to face the positive electrode layer (13), and a solid electrolyte layer (electrolytic later, 17) positioned between the positive electrode layer (13) and the negative electrode layer (15) (Figure 1, [0016]). Miyatake further discloses that the at least one power generation element (single cell layer, 19) includes a first power generation element (single cell layer, 19) to be laminated adjacent to the current collector (11), and the first metal layer (metallic layer, 1a) of the current collector (11) faces the positive electrode layer (13) of the first power generation element (single cell layer, 19) without sandwiching the solid electrolyte layer (electrolytic later, 17) of the first power generation element (single cell layer, 19) and the conductor layer (conductive plastic layer, 2a) of the current collector (11) (Figures 1 and 2E, [0016, 0050]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met. Regarding Claim 12 , Miyatake further discloses that the at least one power generation element (single cell layer, 19) further includes a second power generation element (single cell layer, 19) to be laminated adjacent to the first power generation element (single cell layer, 19) via the current collector (11) (Figure 1, [0016]). Miyatake further discloses that the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) of the current collector (11) faces the negative electrode layer (15) of the second power generation element (single cell layer, 19) without sandwiching the solid electrolyte layer (electrolytic later, 17) of the second power generation element (single cell layer, 19) and the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) of the current collector (11) (Figures 1 and 2E, [0016, 0050-0051]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met . 07-15 AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Miyatake et al. (JP 2010092664 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 12/15/2023) (citations herein made in reference to the English machine translation attached to IDS dated 12/15/2023), as applied to Claim 1 above, with evidentiary support from Machine MFG (Webpage) . Regarding Claim 4 , Miyatake further discloses that the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) may comprise chromium (Cr) which is alloyed with stainless steel and nickel (Figure 2E, [0062]). Miyatake further discloses that the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) may be formed from copper (Figure 2E, [0062]). Miyatake does not explicitly state the hardness of the second metal layer and the third metal layer. i.e. Cr-SS-Ni alloy vs Cu. The Machine MFG Webpage teaches that chromium has a Mohs hardness of 8.5, steel has a Mohs hardness of 4, nickel has a Mohs hardness of 4, and copper has a Mohs hardness of 3. As such, the skilled artisan appreciate that the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) comprising an alloy of chromium, stainless steel, and nickel necessarily has a hardness greater than the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) comprising copper. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyatake et al. (JP 2010092664 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 12/15/2023) (citations herein made in reference to the English machine translation attached to IDS dated 12/15/2023), as applied to Claim 1 above . In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Miyatake discloses the current collector of Claim 1 as set forth above. Miyatake further discloses that the total thickness of each of the first metal layer (metallic layer, 1a), the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b), and the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) is between 0.01 µm and 20 µm (Figure 2E, [0064]). The examiner notes that the term “a thickness” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. From the range of thickness’ for each of the metal layers taught by Miyatake above, the skilled artisan would appreciate that, for example, the first metal layer (metallic layer, 1a) may have a total thickness of 20 µm, the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) may have a total thickness of 5 µm, and the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) may have a total thickness of 5 µm. As such, the total thickness of the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) and the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) would be 10 µm which is less than the total thickness of the first metal layer (metallic layer, 1a) which is 20 µm. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met. In Regards to Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Miyatake discloses the current collector of Claim 1 as set forth above. Miyatake further discloses that the total thickness of the second metal layer (metallic layer, 1b) is between 0.01 µm and 20 µm (Figure 2E, [0064]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met. In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Miyatake discloses the current collector of Claim 1 as set forth above. Miyatake further discloses that the total thickness of the third metal layer (metallic layer, 1c) is between 0.01 µm and 20 µm (Figure 2E, [0064]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met. In Regards to Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1): Miyatake discloses the current collector of Claim 1 as set forth above. Miyatake further discloses that the total thickness of the conductor layer (conductive plastic layer, 2a) is between 1 µm and 200 µm (Figure 2E, [0088]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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. /E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/540,976 Page 2 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/540,976 Page 3 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/540,976 Page 4 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/540,976 Page 5 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/540,976 Page 6 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/540,976 Page 7 Art Unit: 1724 Application/Control Number: 18/540,976 Page 8 Art Unit: 1724
Prosecution Insights