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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-12 are currently pending
Claim 1 is amended
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 11 June 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 12 March 2026
The 103 rejections over Suzuki in view of Kohiki are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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, 3-4, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20060088723 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, in view of Kohiki et al. (KR 20140023235 A), hereinafter Kohiki.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 10, Suzuki teaches a surface-treated copper foil [0022] comprising needle-shaped copper particles formed on at least one surface thereof, in this case roughening particles of copper [0025], wherein the copper particles have an average major-axis length of 0.3 to 3.0 µm [0026], which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.6 µm to about 2.0 µm. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to form the copper particles with a major-axis length within the claimed range. 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).
Suzuki does not specify the copper particles being separated from one another by a distance of about 2.6 µm to about 5 µm and having an aspect ratio of about 1.5 to about 10. However, Suzuki teaches that preferably 10 to 100 projections exist in a 25 µm length [0055]. This means each projection takes up 0.25 to 2.5 µm between the width and the separation distance. Examiner acknowledges that the maximum separation distance of 2.5 µm does not overlap with the claimed range of 2.6 to 5 µm. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The aspect ratio is calculated by comparing the width and the major-axis length of the copper particles. Suzuki teaches a major-axis length that overlaps with the claimed major axis length and a separation distance that is close to the claimed separation distance. Therefore, the proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, in this case the same aspect ratio. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Suzuki is also silent as to the copper foil being used as a negative electrode current collector. However, Kohiki teaches a roughened electrolytic copper foil as a negative electrode current collector (pg. 1, ¶ 2). Suzuki and Kohiki are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surface-treated copper foils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the copper foil of Suzuki as a negative electrode current collector, as taught by Kohiki. The selection of a known material, in this case roughened copper foil, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a negative electrode current collector, has supported a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Suzuki is further silent as to the surface-treated copper foil having an interfacial resistance of about 10% or more lower than that of untreated copper foil, as required by claim 4, and is silent as to the surface-treated copper foil having an interfacial resistance of about 0.0025 ohm/m2 to about 0.0032 ohm/m2, as required by claims 1 and 10. However, the copper foil of Suzuki is produced by a substantially identical process to the claimed process of claim 10.
Suzuki teaches the copper foil being plated in two baths [0076] where the first bath [0075 Electroplating B Bath 1] is 1 to 50 g/L copper sulfate, which overlaps with the claimed 5 to 20 g/L, 3 to 25 g/L nickel sulfate, which overlaps with the claimed 5 to 15 g/L, at a temperature of 20 to 60 °C, which overlaps with the claimed 25 to 45 °C, for 5 to 60 seconds, which overlaps with the claimed 1 to 5 seconds, and the second bath is [0075 Electroplating B Bath 2] is 10 to 70 g/L copper sulfate, which overlaps with the claimed 40 to 70 g/L, 30 to 120 g/L sulfuric acid, which overlaps with the claimed 100 to 150 g/L, at a current density of 20 to 50 A/dm2, which overlaps with the claimed 10 to 20 A/dm2, a temperature of 20 to 65 °C, which overlaps with the claimed 25 to 45 °C, for 5 to 60 seconds, which overlaps with the claimed 1 to 5 seconds. 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).
Suzuki is silent as to the current density of the first plating bath being 1 to 5 A/dm2. However, "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the current density to obtain uniformly distributed projections [0061].
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the copper foil of Suzuki to have the claimed interfacial resistance change of claim 4 and the claimed interfacial resistance of claim 1 because the copper foil of Suzuki is produced by a substantially identical method. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, modified Suzuki teaches the surface-treated copper foil according to claim 1, wherein the surface-treated copper foil has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 200 µm [0039] and Original Foil 1 has a thickness of 12 µm [0070], which lies within the claimed range of 1 µm to 100 µm. 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). Further, "if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Suzuki teaches the surface-treated copper foil according to claim 1. Suzuki is silent as to the surface-treated copper foil having an adhesive strength of about 20% or more greater than the untreated copper foil and is silent as to the surface-treated copper foil having an adhesive strength of about 3 gf/mm to about 5 gf/mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the adhesive strength through variation of the surface roughness [0016]. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Suzuki teaches the surface-treated copper foil according to claim 1. Suzuki is silent as to an anti-rust layer covering the copper particles. However, Kohiki teaches an electrodeposited copper foil further comprising a rustproof treatment layer using chromium oxide (pg. 5, ¶ 2) and/or a silane coupling layer (pg. 5, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copper foil of Suzuki to include the rust-proof layer of Kohiki. Doing so would have improved the heat resistance and corrosion resistance of the surface-treated copper foil (pg. 5, ¶ 4).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Suzuki teaches the surface-treated copper foil according to claim 1 being used as a negative electrode current collector. Suzuki is silent as to an active material being coated on the surface-treated copper foil. However, Kohiki teaches a negative electrode (pg. 5, ¶ 7) comprising flaky graphite powder, which is considered to be equivalent to the carbon required by claim 12, being used as a negative electrode active material in a negative electrode paste that then gets applied to the surface of the copper foil (pg. 10, ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the metal foil of Suzuki in the negative electrode taught by Kohiki with the flaky graphite powder negative electrode active material. Doing so would have produced a negative electrode with high strength and improved flexibility (pg. 3, ¶ 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Suzuki teaches a highly dense distribution, as reflected in the calculated 0.25 to 2.5 µm spacing, with a low surface roughness, while the presently claimed embodiments adopt a more spaced morphology of 2.6 to 5 µm to optimize the interfacial resistance and adhesive strength. Examiner acknowledges that the calculated spacing of Suzuki does not overlap with the claimed spacing range, but is merely close. However, Examiner respectfully notes that this supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, in this case the same aspect ratio, interfacial resistance, and adhesive strength. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Suzuki would have been actively discouraged from forming high aspect ratio “needle-shaped” particles that would increase the surface roughness. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Suzuki is silent as to a relationship between the aspect ratio of the projections and the roughness of the foil and how one would affect the other.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a lack of motivation to modify Suzuki’s structure to arrive at the claimed spacing have been considered but are moot because the current ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights