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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments submitted on February 2nd, 2025 have been entered into the file.
Currently claims 1-8 are pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed February 2nd, 2025 have been received.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150037675 A1) in view of Shinozaki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130108922 A1) and Yang (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040104117 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Izuhara teaches an electrolytic iron foil (Paragraph 0017) having a first surface and a second surface, as shown in the annotated figure below (Paragraph 0024).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Izuhara
Izuhara teaches the thickness of the electrolytic iron foil is less than 20 µm (5 µm to 20 µm) (Paragraph 0021).
Izuhara teaches the iron foil comprising a plurality of concave-shaped hallows (Paragraph 0018) which have a depth (three dimensional surface texture parameter Sv) of 0.5 µm to 2.5 µm (Paragraph 0021).
Therefore, Izuhara teaches a valve obtained by dividing Sv by the thickness calculated as shown below:
When Sv=0.5 µm and thickness is less than 20 µm (19 µm for the purposes of calculations):
0.5 / 19 = 0.03
When Sv=2.5 µm and thickness is 5 µm:
2.5 / 5 = 0.5
Therefore, Izuhara teaches the range of values obtained by dividing a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sv by the thickness is from 0.03 to 0.5. This overlaps the instant claimed range of valves (equal to or less than 0.27). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Izuhara is silent as to the valve obtained by dividing Sv by thickness being equal to or less than 0.27 in both the first surface and the second surface.
However, Shinozaki discloses a lithium ion secondary battery including a positive electrode and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer formed on the surface of a negative electrode current collector having a surface formed with uneven shapes (Paragraph 0002). Further, Shinozaki teaches that by applying a roughening treatment to both surfaces of the current collecting foil and eliminating the difference in shape between the two surfaces, the lithium ion secondary battery can suppress wrinkles, breakage, and other deformation in the collector due to charging and discharging as well as preventing a drop in capacity when the charge-discharge cycle is repeated (Paragraph 0122).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolytic foil of the Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of Shinozaki in which both sides of the foil are roughened. Doing so would advantageously result in a lithium ion secondary battery which suppresses wrinkles, breakage, and other deformation in the collector due to charging and discharging as well as prevents a drop in capacity when the charge-discharge cycle is repeated, as recognized by Shinozaki.
Yang discloses an electrolytic foil for a secondary battery electrode collector (Abstract). Yang teaches that when the roughness of each side of the foil is different, battery characteristics differ from each side (Paragraph 0007). Conversely, Yang teaches a more reliable battery characteristics can be obtained when the roughness on both sides of the foil are similar.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolytic foil of the Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of Yang in which the roughness of the electrolytic foil on both sides is similar. Doing so would advantageously result in more reliable battery characteristics, as recognized by Yang.
The result of the modification of Izuhara in view of Shinozaki and Yang is the roughening of both sides of the electrolytic iron foil so that the roughness on each side is similar. As discussed above, Izuhara teaches that the value obtained by dividing Sv of a surface of the foil by the thickness of the foil is from 0.03 to 0.5. According to the teachings of Shinozaki and Yang, as discussed above, the ordinary artisan would be motivated to provide a surface texture of the second surface of the foil with a roughness similar to the roughness of the first surface. The ordinary artisan would recognize that when the roughness on each side of the foil are similar according to Yang, then the Sv values of the first and second surface would be similar. The result would be that in the division of Sv by the thickness of the foil to obtain a value, the thickness of the foil would be the same for both sides of the foil and the Sv values of the first and second surface would be similar. The value obtained from the division would then be between 0.03 to 0.5 (as calculated above) in both the first surface and the second surface, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
As discussed above, Izuhara teaches the thickness of the electrolytic iron foil is less than 20 µm (5 µm to 20 µm) and Sv is 0.5 µm to 2.5 µm (Paragraph 0021). It was calculated in the rejection of claim 1 that Izuhara teaches the range of values obtained by dividing a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sv by the thickness is from 0.03 to 0.5 in the first surface and the second surface.
This overlaps the instant claimed range of valves (equal to or less than 0.24). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
Izuhara reaches the iron foil of the disclosure is a pure iron foil such as an electromagnetic soft iron, which contains C, Mn, and Si in concentrations of 0.03% by mass or smaller, 0.50% by mass or smaller, 0.20% by mass or smaller, respectively, and Fe and inevitable impurities (Paragraph 0044).
Thus, Izuhara teaches the content of C, Mn, and Si are cumulatively 0.73% or smaller (0.03% + 0.50% + 0.2%), and the balance of Fe and inevitable impurities in the iron foil is 99.27%. As Izuhara teaches that the electrolytic foil is a “pure” iron foil, the ordinary artisan would recognize that in the 99.27% of inevitable impurities and Fe, that the iron content would be at least 80 wt% or it would be obvious to provide the iron content to be at least 80%, meeting the limitations of the instant claim. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that in an electrolytic foil which is “pure” iron foil, the non-iron elements would be desirably as small as possible and that the inevitable impurities would be smaller than the content of the non-iron components (C, Mn, and Si) of the pure iron foil purposefully quantified in the teachings of Izuhara.
Regarding claim 7, Izuhara teaches an electrolytic iron foil for a battery current collector, comprising: the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 8, Izuhara teaches an electrolytic iron foil for a battery current collector, comprising: the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0020). Izuhara teaches the battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (Paragraph 0057), therefore the battery comprising the electrolytic iron foil for a current collector may be considered a nonaqueous battery, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 above, and further in view of Huang (W.O. 2020156183 A1) (machine translation relied upon, hereafter “J. Huang”).
Regarding claim 3, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according claim 1.
Izuhara is silent as to a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdq (root mean square gradient) of the electrolytic iron foil being equal to or more than 0.06 in at least either one of the first surface and the second surface.
However, Izuhara recognizes that the surface of a foil is roughened for the purpose of enhancing adhesion (Paragraph 0006). Further, Izuhara teaches that in order to increase conductivity, the iron electrolytic foil may be coated with a conductive foil or film, comprising metals such as copper or aluminum, on a surface of the iron foil which opposes the surface in contact with the electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0054).
J. Huang discloses a surface-treated copper foil (Paragraph 2) wherein the copper foil (Figure 1, Element 100) may be an electrolytic foil formed through electrodeposition such as electroplating (Paragraph 25). J. Huang teaches the foil comprising a treatment surface (Figure 1, Element 100A) (Paragraph 26), which has a root mean square gradient Sdq which is less than or equal to 1.0 (Paragraph 9). J. Huang teaches that by controlling surface roughness parameters such as Sdq, the adhesion between the copper foil and adjacent layer it contacts (for the prior art, a carrier) is improved (Paragraph 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of the iron foil which opposes the surface in contact with the electrolyte solution of Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of J. Huang in which the three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdq of the surface is less than or equal to 1.0. Doing so would advantageously result in improved adhesion between the electrolytic foil and a neighboring conductive foil or film, as recognized by J. Huang.
The resulting range of Sdq of Izuhara in view of J. Huang lies within the Sdq range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 above, and further in view of Ueda (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120202101 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
Izuhara is silent as to the elongation being equal to or more than 1.2%.
However, Ueda discloses a thin flexible battery including an electrode comprising a sheet-like current collector (Paragraph 0001). Ueda teaches the negative electrode current collector (foil) should have an elongation of 5-15% to prevent separation of the active material and damage to the current collector during bending of the battery (Paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolytic iron foil of Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of Ueda in which elongation is 5-15%. Doing so would advantageously result in the prevent of active material separation and current collector damage, as recognized by Ueda.
The resulting range of elongation of Izuhara in view of Ueda lies within the range of elongation of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuhara as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-8 above, and further in view of Huang (U.S. Patent No. 10781523 B1) (hereafter “H. Huang”).
Regarding claim 6, Izuhara teaches the electrolytic iron foil according to claim 1.
Izuhara is silent as to a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdr is equal to or more than 0.2% in at least either one of the first surface and the second surface.
However, H. Huang discloses an electrolytic foil for a lithium-ion battery (Paragraph 0002), comprising a drum side (first surface) which is near the cathode and a deposited side (second surface) which is near the electrolytic solution (Paragraph 0065), where the drum and the deposited sides are the outermost sides of the electrolytic foil (Paragraphs 0013, 0065). H. Huang teaches that by controlling the surface morphology of the first and second surfaces of the electrolytic foil, the adhesion strength between the electrolytic foil and the active material is enhanced which prolongs the cycle life of the lithium ion battery comprising the foil (Paragraph 0013). One the surface morphology variables taught by Huang is a three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdr, which is controlled in a range of 0.06% to 13% for the first and second surfaces (Paragraph 0008) in order to optimize the reliability and durability of the lithium-ion battery as well as improve its charge-discharge cycle life performance (Paragraph 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second surfaces electrolytic foil of Izuhara to incorporate the teachings of H. Huang in which the three-dimensional surface texture parameter Sdr is within the range of 0.06% to 13%. Doing so would advantageously result in improved reliability, durability, and charge/discharge characteristics of the battery, as recognized by H. Huang.
The resulting range of Sdr of Izuhara in view of H. Huang lies within the Sdr range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
On page 4 of the arguments received February 2nd, 2025, applicant argues that Izuhara discloses in paragraphs 0044-0045 that the foil is comprised of cold-rolled steel and cold-rolled stainless steel, and thus Izuhara neither discloses or suggests an electrolytic foil as recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the teachings of Izuhara which indicate the suitable materials for the iron foil, including pure iron (Paragraph 0044). “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)). “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)). Therefore, Izuhara teaches pure iron as a suitable material to comprise the foil of the disclosure, meeting the claimed limitations.
On pages 5-6 of the arguments received February 2nd, 2025, applicant argues that the term “electrolytic foil” does not appear in Izuhara and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the foil of Izuhara encompasses the electrolytic foil of the instant disclosure, and is instead a rolled foiled with different physical properties and characteristics
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Office action mailed October 2nd, 2025 as the prior art renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims. While Izuhara may not explicitly refer to the iron foil of the disclosure as an electrolytic foil, Izuhara teaches the negative electrode of the battery comprised of a negative electrode active material formed on the iron foil current collector. During operation of the battery, Izuhara teaches the charging promotes a reaction between the electrolyte of the battery and the surface of the iron foil (Paragraph 0024). Therefore, Izuhara clearly presents teachings in the disclosure where the iron foil is electrochemically active during operation of the battery, notably via its reactivity with the electrolyte, and is thus considered an electrolytic iron foil in accordance with the claimed limitations.
Further, no definition of electrolytic iron foil has been given in the disclosure of the present application that specifies the criteria for an iron foil to be considered electrolytic. Thus, the iron foil of Izuhara exhibiting electrochemical activity during the battery’s usage is interpreted by the Examiner to be electrolytic.
With respect to the rolled foil of Izuhara which applicant arguments is “entirely different” from the electrolytic foil of the instant disclosure, the Examiner presents the rolled foil of Izuhara is only one of a number of suitable options for the iron foil disclosed. While Izuhara provides cold-rolled steel may comprise the iron foil, Izuhara also teaches pure iron such as soft iron suitable for use in the foil (Paragraph 0044). As mentioned above, “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches]…” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Thus, the foil of Izuhara is not limited to the embodiment in which it is rolled, and the foil of Izuhara is not required to be rolled according to the teachings.
Additionally, as described in the above rejections the iron foil of modified Izuhara comprises the structural features which are possessed by the electrolytic foil of the instant application, particularly relating to thickness, surface texture, iron content, and elongation. This provides further structural evidence that the foil of Izuhara in view of Ueda and Huang is an electrolytic foil and capable of being used in the same way as the instant disclosure.
On page 6 of the arguments received February 2nd, 2025, applicant argues that the disclosure of Izuhara relating to a heat treatment of the foil via a laser beam would result in hardening of the foil, resulting in low elongation which is in contrast with the teachings of the instant disclosure.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence of the record. See MPEP 2145. There is no explicit teaching of Izuhara indicating that the laser beam treatment of the foil would result in hardening and prevent elongation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789