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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/17/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-16, 18 and 20 are pending. This Action is FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/25 has been entered.
Claims Analysis
The claims recite a fracture energy of a copper foil measured according to an ASTM D4833 test method. Examiner notes ASTM D4833 is a standard test method that is known for use in the prior art to measure or determine a puncture resistance.
The present specification teaches “the fracture energy (FE) parameter may be affected by a thickness of the copper foil, a surface roughness of opposite surfaces and the like (page 12). The specification discloses “the copper foil may include or be formed of conventional copper or a copper alloy known in the art” (bottom of page 16). The specification further discloses “the copper foil may be a common high-strength, high elongation copper foil known in the art” (page 17). The specification does not indicate the copper foil of the present specification has a structural composition distinguishable from the copper foils that are known in the prior art.
Using different methods for measuring a break point of a known copper foil does not distinguish the claimed copper foil (disclosed as a copper foil known in the art) over a copper foil that is disclosed by the prior art.
Note the cited prior art teaches the claimed thickness, tensile strength, elongation, surface roughness and anti-corrosion layer of the claimed coper foil. Note the cited prior art teaches a method for making an electrolytic copper foil. The specification indicates copper foils of the prior art would have had the fracture energy of the claimed invention. In at least claim 1, lines 10-17 recite limitations regarding measuring and/or testing of the copper foil. Only structural limitations of the product copper foil are given patentable weight. Any limitations regarding or relying on properties of the copper foil resulting from specific testing methods are not given patentable weight. At least lines 10-22 of claim 1 are not given patentable weight. Examiner notes the results shown in Table 1 and 2 are produced when the copper foils of the Examples were evaluated for physical properties (top page 25 of specification).
Examiner further notes the specification (at top of page 11) discloses “the fracture energy by thickness is a parameter that is newly defined in the present invention”. The “newly defined parameter” does not impart structure to the copper foil.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the copper foil is formed through electroplating comprising a specific electrolyte composition. However, limitations regarding the method of forming the claimed electrolytic copper foil have not been given patentable weight. Product by process limitations, in the absence of unexpected results, have not been given patentable weight. MPEP 2113.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 11-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohiki, US 2014/0318973 A1.
Kohiki teaches an electrolytic copper foil that has a high normal tensile strength, a low decrease in tensile strength after a thermal history, and a low concentration of impurities in the copper foil (abstract). The surface or backside and further both sides of the electrolytic copper foil may be preferably subjected to an anti-rust treatment. The anti-rust treatment is the surface film formation with chromium oxide alone or with a mixture of chromium oxide and zinc/zinc oxide. Surface roughening can be carried out as needed before the anti-rust treatment. Abrasive particles can be formed by plating of one kind of copper, cobalt, and nickel or alloy plating of two kinds or more thereof. Typically, the abrasive particles can be formed by alloy plating of the copper, cobalt, and nickel. Further, to improve heat resistance and weathering properties (anti-rust), the copper foil for an anode current collector of a secondary battery is preferably treated to form, on a roughened surface of both sides, not less than one type of anti-rust treatment layers or heat resistant layers selected from the group of a cobalt-nickel alloy plating layer, a zinc-nickel alloy plating layer, and a chromate layer and/or a silane coupling layer (claim 9). The silane coupling agent is applied to both sides or a deposited surface of an anti-rust layer may be carried out as needed in order to improve adhesion of an active material to a copper foil [0031-0034].
Kohiki teaches the electrolytic copper foil has smaller surface roughness Rz as compared to a conventional electrolytic copper foil, and the surface roughness Rz is no more than 2.0 mm, further no more than 1.8 mm, further from 0.6 to 1.7 mm. "Surface roughness Rz " is a value determined by a surface roughness test according to JIS B-0601. This improves adhesion to an anti-rust layer applied to the surface of an electrolytic copper foil and gives better handling properties [0027].
Regarding at least claim 7, Example 1 of Kohiki teaches an electrolytic copper foil with a thickness of 10 mm, a tensile strength in normal conditions of 57 kgf/mm2, a tensile strength after heating of 52 kgf/mm2 and an elongation percentage of 7.2 (Examiner notes claim 7 encompasses an elongation before heat treatment of 2-10%, thus, an elongation percentage of 7.2 taught by Kohiki is encompassed by the claims). See at least Example 1 [0036]. Regarding at least claims 11 and 12, see at least [0002], [0014] and [0019].
Kohiki does not explicitly teach the fracture energy as recited by at least claim 1. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the fracture energy is obtained when the copper foil is subjected to a specific measurement test method before and after heat treatment. The copper foil of the claimed invention and the copper foil of Kohiki appear to be structurally equivalent or substantially structurally equivalent as discussed above. The measurement method and/or heat treatment does not appear to impart any structure to the claimed copper foil. Measurement of a property of the copper foil is considered obvious when the prior art copper foil comprises the same or similar structure (albeit does not explicitly teach the claimed property being measured). See also the fracture energy measured values of at least claims 2-5.
Furthermore, Kohiki teaches the electrolytic copper foil exhibits high tensile strength in normal conditions at not less than 50 kgf/mm2, preferably from 50 to 70 kgf/mm2 and retains not less than 90% of tensile strength in normal conditions after heating at 250°C for 30 minutes. This provides an electrolytic copper foil excellent in processability in pressing and slitting. "Tensile strength" in the present invention refers to a value determined in the tensile strength test according to IPC-TM-650, and "tensile strength in normal conditions" refers to a value determined in normal condition (23°C) in the tensile strength test according to IPC-TM-650 [0025].
Examiner notes “formed through electroplating” and “directly formed through electroplating” are product by process limitations that, in the absence of unexpected results, are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2113.
**
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al., US 2014/0199588 A1.
Shinozaki teaches an electrodeposited copper foil having a tensile strength of at least 300 MPa and elongation rate of at least 3.0% after heat treatment at 350°C for 1 hour and provides a copper foil which prevents the breakage of a current collector (copper foil) while maintaining adhesiveness between the current collector (copper foil) and the active material in response to substantial expansion and contraction of a Si or Sn alloy-based active material. The foil is an electrodeposited copper foil having a roughened surface with respective surface area ratios (actual surface area/geometric surface area) of both sides of the copper foil (the side that is roughened and the side that is not roughened) being from 1.6 to 2.2 (abstract).
The electrodeposited copper foils are subjected to a roughening treatment and subjected to rust proofing (anti-corrosion). An untreated electrodeposited copper foil was immersed for 5 seconds in an aqueous solution of CrO3 (1 g/L) and subjected to chromate treatment. The foil was then washed with water and dried. Although chromate treatment was performed, it goes without saying that benzotriazole treatment, silane coupling agent treatment, or chromate treatment followed by silane coupling agent treatment may also be performed [0056-0058]. The electrodeposited copper foil in each working example has a thickness of 12 mm [0068]. See at least Table 1 regarding an initial tensile strength, an initial elongation rate, a tensile strength after heating and an elongation after heating of the electrodeposited coper foil of each working example. The copper foil is prepared so as to have a surface roughness Rz of from 1.5 to 20 mm by roughening the surface of the copper foil [0022]. See also Table 4.
Shinozaki does not explicitly teach the fracture energy as recited by at least claim 1. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the fracture energy is obtained when the copper foil is subjected to a specific measurement test method before and after heat treatment. The copper foil of the claimed invention and the copper foil of Shinozaki appear to be structurally equivalent or substantially structurally equivalent as discussed above. The measurement method and/or the heat treatment does not appear to impart any structure to the claimed copper foil. Measurement of a property of the copper foil is considered obvious when the prior art copper foil comprises the same or similar structure (albeit does not explicitly teach the property being measured). See also the fracture energy measured values of at least claims 2-5.
Examiner notes “formed through electroplating” and “directly formed through electroplating” are product by process limitations that, in the absence of unexpected results, are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “in general, copper foil exhibits a substantially constant tensile strength regardless of thickness, whereas its elongation decreases and its fracture energy also tends to decrease as the thickness becomes smaller”. Examiner disagrees. Applicant does not provide support and/or evidence for this statement. The tensile strength of copper foil is influenced by its thickness and grain size. As the thickness of the foil decreases, the tensile strength also decreases, particularly when the thickness is thinner than the grain diameter. This relationship is crucial for applications requiring high strength and durability, such as in microelectronic products and printed circuit boards. The study of these properties is essential for optimizing the use of copper foil in various technological applications.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=tensile%20strength%20versus%20thickness%20of%20copper%20foil&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=tensile%20strength%20versus%20thickness%20of%20copper%20foil&sc=0-48&sk=&cvid=175D493F514A45DA9C4650FFB0EAE1B0
The relationship between elongation and thickness of copper foil is a critical aspect of its mechanical properties. As the thickness of the foil decreases, the elongation increases, provided the grain size remains constant. This is due to the joint action of grain deformation hardening and the surface layer grains. The tensile strength of copper foil also increases with the decrease of grain size at constant thickness. However, the effect of thickness on elongation is significant, with a linear relationship observed over the thickness range of 500 to 125 mm. The smaller the thickness, the greater the influence of grain size on the tensile strength, and the smaller the grain size, the larger the elongation. This phenomenon is linked to the variation of the fracture mechanism, where larger thickness samples exhibit a mixed fracture of slip separation and nest cracking, while thinner samples show a single slip separation fracture with low hardening index.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=elongation%20versus%20thickness%20of%20copper%20foil&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=elongation%20versus%20thickness%20of%20copper%20foil&sc=0-42&sk=&cvid=DA18717889504DEB8D01AD6DCB3C332F
Examiner notes that at least claim 1 is neither directed toward a battery nor recites any thickness limitations of the claimed copper foil.
Applicant’s arguments and/or Examples 1-3 of the present specification are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The comparative examples of the present specification are not representative of the prior art of record. Examiner notes Examples 1-3 apply a current density of 60 ASD while Comparative Examples 1-3 apply a current density of 65 ASD. The present specification teaches the current density controls the surface roughness of the copper foil (see at least page 20, lines 17-21). Furthermore, the specification describes the electroplating process as “conventional” multiple times. See at least pages 18-19.
Applicant has not presented persuasive arguments that distinguish the claimed copper foil over the copper foil of the prior art. Kohiki teaches the electrolytic copper foil has smaller surface roughness Rz as compared to a conventional electrolytic copper foil, and the surface roughness Rz is no more than 2.0 mm, further no more than 1.8 mm, further from 0.6 to 1.7 mm. Shinozaki teaches a copper foil wherein the foil is an electrodeposited copper foil having a roughened surface with respective surface area ratios (actual surface area/geometric surface area) of both sides of the copper foil (the side that is roughened and the side that is not roughened) being from 1.6 to 2.2. The copper foil is prepared so as to have a surface roughness Rz of from 1.5 to 20 mm by roughening the surface of the copper foil [0022]. Note at least claim 1 recites the surface roughness of the copper foil ranges from 0.5-4 mm.
Applicant has not presented any persuasive arguments distinguishing the claimed copper foil over the copper foil disclosed by the cited prior art. Kohiki teaches an electrolytic copper foil with a thickness of 10 mm, a tensile strength in normal conditions of 57 kgf/mm2 and an elongation percentage of 7.2. Kohiki teaches the electrolytic copper foil exhibits high tensile strength in normal conditions at not less than 50 kgf/mm2, preferably from 50 to 70 kgf/mm2. Shinozaki teaches an electrodeposited copper foil having a tensile strength of at least 300 MPa and elongation rate of at least 3.0%.
Applicant argues “Kohiki does not teach or suggest that the copper foil is an electro-deposition copper foil formed through electroplating, the first surface and the second surface each have a surface roughness directly formed through electroplating in a range of 0.5 to 4.0 mm and a difference in the surface roughness of the first surface and the surface roughness of the second surface is 1.0 mm or less, as required by claim 1. See the rejection in view of Kohiki above, which has not been addressed by Applicant. Applicant argues Kohiki does not teach or suggest that “a tensile strength of the copper foil after heating at 200°C for 10 minutes is in a range from 20 to 35 kgf/mm2”. See the rejection in view of Kohiki above, which has not been addressed by Applicant. Applicant argues “Kohiki does not teach or suggest the claimed fracture energy”. See the rejection in view of Kohiki above, which has not been addressed by Applicant. A method of measuring a property of a copper foil is not considered “a patentably distinct property”.
Regarding at least claim 7, Example 1 of Kohiki teaches an electrolytic copper foil with a thickness of 10 m, a tensile strength in normal conditions of 57 kgf/mm2, and an elongation percentage of 7.2 (Examiner notes claim 7 encompasses an elongation before heat treatment of 2-10%, thus, an elongation percentage of 7.2 taught by Kohiki is encompassed by the claims). Applicant argues Kohiki does not teach or suggest “wherein a tensile strength of the copper foil after heating at 200°C for 10 minutes is 50% or less of a tensile strength of the copper foil before being heated”. Examiner disagrees and notes only the tensile strength of the product copper foil is given patentable weight. At least pending claim 7 recites the tensile strength of the copper foil is in a range from 25 to 70 kgf/mm2. Example 1 of Kohiki teaches an electrolytic copper foil with a thickness of 10 m and a tensile strength in normal conditions of 57 kgf/mm2. Neither process limitations nor methods of testing limitations of the pending claims have been given patentable weight.
Regarding Kohiki, Applicant asserts the elongation of the copper foil after heat treatment can be estimated to be on the order of about 4-6%. However, no support or evidence is provided for the assertion.
Regarding “[Table 1]” on page 10 of the amendment, Applicant argued Kohiki not only does not specifically disclose or suggest the plating additives of the copper foil, but also fundamentally does not include HEC and MPS additives that are included as essential components in the present method. Examine requests Applicant provide evidence and/or cite the section of the present specification that supports this argument. The specification describes the additives as being “commonly used in the field of electroplating” (page 19). Furthermore, the comparative examples 1-3 of the present specification recite amounts of halogen ion, HEC, gelatin and MPS that clearly overlap with the amounts of the additives recited by at least claim 1. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the additives are “essential components” and/or that the additives impart any specific structure to the claimed copper foil. The specification teaches surface roughness of the copper foil may be controlled by controlling the composition of the electrolyte, the current density, the temperature and the type and/or content of the additive (bottom page 20). The electrolyte composition is not the only controlling factor for the properties of the copper foil.
Furthermore, any persuasive evidence showing the electroplating solution components of Kohiki are different from that of at least claim 1 would not negate the teaching of surface roughness by Kohiki. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the claimed copper foil is structurally different from the copper foil of Kohiki. Kohiki teaches an electrolytic copper foil comprising an anti-corrosion layer having the claimed surface roughness, elongation and tensile strength.
See the “claims analysis” section above and the 35 USC 103 rejections in view of the cited prior art. Applicant has not shown the claimed copper foil is structurally different from the copper foil of the cited prior art, only that the copper foil of the prior art may have different properties when subjected to different testing/heating conditions. There does not appear to be any support for the assertion that a “technical feature” is being claimed regarding the content of MPS in the electrolytic solution.
Regarding lines 10-22 of claim 1, Applicant asserted “the properties of the copper foil reflect structure/composition of the copper foil”. However, no support or evidence is provided for this assertion. The claims must be directed toward a single product having a clearly claimed structure. Examiner notes any structural changes that require use in a battery would not be given patentable weight.
Examiner requests Applicant identify the recited properties of the copper foil product of at least claim 1. Methods of heat treatment, measuring methods or testing of a copper foil, or a copper foil after use conditions, are not given patentable weight. Only structural limitations of the “copper foil”, as recited by at least claim 1, have been given patentable weight. See also the claims analysis section above.
Applicant has not shown the claimed copper foil is structurally different from the copper foil of Shinozaki, only that the electrolytic solution used to produce the copper foil of the prior art may not comprise MPS. There does not appear to be any support for the assertion that a “technical feature” is being claimed regarding the content of MPS is the electrolytic solution.
Regarding Shinozaki, Applicant argues the product by process limitations of claim 1 should be given patentable weight because they impart differences in structure/composition and thus differences in properties. However, Examiner has requested multiple times that Applicant identify the specific differences in structure/composition imparted by the process limitations of claim 1. Applicant only asserts differences in methods when comparing with Shinozaki. Applicant has not identified any specific structural/compositional differences, thus, this argument is not properly supported.
Product by process limitations have not been given patentable weight. Applicant does not provide any persuasive arguments distinguishing the claimed copper foil over the copper foil taught by Shinozaki. Furthermore, Shinozaki teaches an electrodeposited copper foil having a tensile strength of at least 300 MPa and elongation rate of at least 3.0% after heat treatment. See at least Table 1 of Shinozaki regarding an initial tensile strength, an initial elongation rate, a tensile strength after heating and an elongation after heating of the electrodeposited coper foil of each working example. Applicant has not addressed the teachings of at least Table 1.
Any evidence of unexpected results must distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of record. Furthermore, Applicant has not presented evidence that increase in elongation after heat treatment is unexpected. Applicant has not shown that tensile strength decreasing after heat treatment is unexpected.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727