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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1, 2, 12 amended to further limit the range of the change in hit rate before and after heat treatment
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the objections of claims 7 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 7 and 17 have been withdrawn. Examiner notes that it must have been a mistake to object to them in the first place.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen (US 20200350620 A1). Chen teaches an electrolytic copper foil which contains all of the additives taught by the instant application and in ranges that overlap or anticipate the claimed ranges. Therefore, Chen teaches an electrolytic copper foil which would have the same desirable properties as that in the instant application.
Regarding dependent claims 2-19, as there is no arguments presented other than regarding the usage of Ashizawa, the rejections of the dependent claims remain in place and unchanged, other than now depending on Chen or being fully in view of Chen, when applicable. There is currently not considered to be allowable subject matter present in the claims. Examiner notes that thiourea is used as the leveler in example 1 of the instant specification—this is not found in Chen. If the claims were amended to further specify what causes the hit rate to change, i.e. which brightener, which leveler, etc., this could perhaps overcome the applied prior art and warrant further search and consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200350620 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
An electrolytic copper foil comprising: a copper layer including one surface and another surface, (“The electrolytic copper foil 110 of the present embodiment is preferably applicable to a lithium ion secondary battery, and can be used as a material of a negative electrode of the lithium ion secondary battery. The electrolytic copper foil 110 of the present embodiment includes a raw foil layer 111, a first oxidation resistant layer 112a, and a second oxidation resistant layer 112b. The raw foil layer 111 has a first surface S1 and a second surface S2 opposite to the first surface S1.” Chen [0021])
wherein a deviation between a hit rate (HT) of the electrolytic copper foil measured by electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) after heat treatment at 200°C for 1 hour and a hit rate (H1) of the electrolytic copper foil before heat treatment is 8% or less. (Chen teaches an electrolytic copper foil with a combination of additives that is the same as in the instant specification. Specifically, Chen teaches the inclusion of a low molecular weight gelatin, a brightener (MPS), HEC, and a leveler (3-benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid, all within the ranges taught in the instant specification. Chen table 1, examples 4 and 5 teach examples of an electrolytic copper foil containing 1 to 10 ppm of a low MW gelatin, 0.5-3.0 ppm of HEC, 0.01-1.5 ppm of a brightener (MPS). Chen also teaches that 3-(benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid sodium salt may be used in combination with MPS “Further, the second addition agent may be at least one component selected from the group consisting of … 3-mercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid (MPS), … 3-(benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid sodium salt (ZPS),” Chen [0040], which would meet the limitations of both brightener and leveler as described in the instant specification pages 21-22 In this case, if a mixture of 50:50 MPS and ZPS were used as the second additive, the ppm ranges for both the brightener and leveler would be met by examples 4 and 5. Chen examples 4 and 5 additionally teach a halogen present in a range between 1 and 50 ppm. Chen also teaches an analogous manufacturing method to that provided in example 1 of instant specification—Chen teaches an electroplating step at the desired current density and formation at the desired temperature “ More specifically, the electroplating step includes: heating the copper electrolytic solution to a predetermined temperature, in which the predetermined temperature is between 50° C. and 60° C., and more preferably between 50° C. and 55° C.; and then forming a current density of 30 A/dm.sup.2 to 80 A/dm.sup.2 between an electrode plate and a rotating electrode drum in the copper electrolytic solution at the predetermined temperature to form the raw foil layer 111 on the rotating electrode drum.” Chen [0047] and “For preparation of the electrolyte, it was adjusted to a copper ion concentration of 100 g/l, a sulfuric acid concentration of 100 g/l, and a chlorine concentration of 30 ppm at a temperature of 55°C … In addition, the plating was carried out at a current density of 60 A/dm2 to prepare a plating with a thickness of 20 pm according to the drum speed adjustment.” Instant spec page 26 line 19. By teaching an electrolytic copper foil with the same or essentially the same composition at that taught by the instant spec, in the same method as taught by the instant spec, the copper foil of Chen would inherently have the same hit rate as the instantly claimed foil. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized)
By teaching a foil which would have the same characteristics as that claimed in claim 1, specifically, a foil that would inherently have the same hit rate, the additional limitations of amended claims 2 and 12 would be met as well.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein a change ratio of hit rate (RHR) of the electrolytic copper foil between before and after heat treatment according to Equation 1 below is 9% or less: [Equation 1] RHR (Ratio of Hit rate, %)= {(HT - H1) / H1} X 100 wherein in Equation 1, HT is a hit rate of the electrolytic copper foil measured by EBSD after heat treatment, and H1 is a hit rate of the electrolytic copper foil measured by EBSD before heat treatment. (Chen teaches an electrolytic copper foil with a combination of additives that is the same as in the instant specification. Specifically, Chen teaches the inclusion of a low molecular weight gelatin, a brightener (MPS), HEC, and a leveler (3-benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid, all within the ranges taught in the instant specification. Chen table 1, examples 4 and 5 teach examples of an electrolytic copper foil containing 1 to 10 ppm of a low MW gelatin, 0.5-3.0 ppm of HEC, 0.01-1.5 ppm of a brightener (MPS). Chen also teaches that 3-(benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid sodium salt may be used in combination with MPS “Further, the second addition agent may be at least one component selected from the group consisting of … 3-mercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid (MPS), … 3-(benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid sodium salt (ZPS),” Chen [0040], which would meet the limitations of both brightener and leveler as described in the instant specification pages 21-22 In this case, if a mixture of 50:50 MPS and ZPS were used as the second additive, the ppm ranges for both the brightener and leveler would be met by examples 4 and 5. Chen examples 4 and 5 additionally teach a halogen present in a range between 1 and 50 ppm. Chen also teaches an analogous manufacturing method to that provided in example 1 of instant specification—Chen teaches an electroplating step at the desired current density and formation at the desired temperature “ More specifically, the electroplating step includes: heating the copper electrolytic solution to a predetermined temperature, in which the predetermined temperature is between 50° C. and 60° C., and more preferably between 50° C. and 55° C.; and then forming a current density of 30 A/dm.sup.2 to 80 A/dm.sup.2 between an electrode plate and a rotating electrode drum in the copper electrolytic solution at the predetermined temperature to form the raw foil layer 111 on the rotating electrode drum.” Chen [0047] and “For preparation of the electrolyte, it was adjusted to a copper ion concentration of 100 g/l, a sulfuric acid concentration of 100 g/l, and a chlorine concentration of 30 ppm at a temperature of 55°C … In addition, the plating was carried out at a current density of 60 A/dm2 to prepare a plating with a thickness of 20 pm according to the drum speed adjustment.” Instant spec page 26 line 19. By teaching an electrolytic copper foil with the same or essentially the same composition at that taught by the instant spec, in the same method as taught by the instant spec, the copper foil of Chen would inherently have the same hit rate as the instantly claimed foil. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized)
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein the electrolytic copper foil comprises a plurality of irregularly crystallized grains, and a change ratio of average grain size between before and after heat treatment according to Equation 2 below is 35 % or less: [Equation 2] RGS (Ratio of grain size, %)= {(GT - G1) / G1} X 100,wherein in Equation 2,GTis an average grain size after heat treatment, andG1 is an average grain size before heat treatment. (“In addition, in the present embodiment, a grain size of each crystal grain of the electrolytic copper foil 110 that is treated by the heat treatment step is between 90% and 130% of a grain size of each crystal grain of the electrolytic copper foil 110 that is not treated by the heat treatment step, and is preferably between 95% and 120%.” Chen [0030]. This anticipates the instantly claimed range.)
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein the electrolytic copper foil is formed through electroplating in which a current is applied between an electrode plate and a rotating drum which are spaced apart from each other in an electrolyte, (“More specifically, the electroplating step includes: heating the copper electrolytic solution to a predetermined temperature, in which the predetermined temperature is between 50° C. and 60° C., and more preferably between 50° C. and 55° C.; and then forming a current density of 30 A/dm.sup.2 to 80 A/dm.sup.2 between an electrode plate and a rotating electrode drum in the copper electrolytic solution at the predetermined temperature to form the raw foil layer 111 on the rotating electrode drum.” Chen [0047])
and the electrolyte comprises 50 to 150 g/l of copper ions, 50 to 150 g/l of sulfuric acid, (“The copper electrolytic solution includes 50 g/L to 70 g/L of copper ions and 70 g/L to 120 g/L of sulfuric acid.” Chen [0056])
1 to 100 ppm of halogen, 0.01 to 1.5 ppm of a brightener, 1 to 10.0 ppm of a low molecular weight gelatin, 0.5 to 3.0 ppm of HEC, and 0.001 to 1.5 ppm of a leveler. (Chen table 1 examples 4 and 5 meet all of these ranges. See claims 1 and 2 above for further details.)
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, applied as an anode current collector for a lithium secondary battery. (“In the present embodiment, the above-described electrolytic copper foil 110 can be applied to a lithium ion secondary battery E, and can be used as a material of the negative electrode 100 of the lithium ion secondary battery E.” Chen [0071])
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
An electrode for a secondary battery, comprising: the copper foil of claim 1, and an active material layer disposed on the copper foil. (“Further referring to FIG. 4, the negative electrode 100 of the lithium ion secondary battery E includes the electrolytic copper foil 110, a first active material layer 120a, and a second active material layer 120b.” Chen [0075])
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein a change ratio of hit rate (RHR) of the electrolytic copper foil between before and after heat treatment according to Equation 1 below is 9 % or less: [Equation 1] RHR (Ratio of Hit rate, %) = [(HT-HI/HI) X 100] wherein in Equation 1, HT is a hit rate of the electrolytic copper foil measured by EBSD after heat treatment, and HI is a hit rate of the electrolytic copper foil measured by EBSD before heat treatment. (Chen teaches an electrolytic copper foil with a combination of additives that is the same as in the instant specification. Specifically, Chen teaches the inclusion of a low molecular weight gelatin, a brightener (MPS), HEC, and a leveler (3-benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid, all within the ranges taught in the instant specification. Chen table 1, examples 4 and 5 teach examples of an electrolytic copper foil containing 1 to 10 ppm of a low MW gelatin, 0.5-3.0 ppm of HEC, 0.01-1.5 ppm of a brightener (MPS). Chen also teaches that 3-(benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid sodium salt may be used in combination with MPS “Further, the second addition agent may be at least one component selected from the group consisting of … 3-mercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid (MPS), … 3-(benzothiazolyl-2-mercapto)-propyl-sulfonic acid sodium salt (ZPS),” Chen [0040], which would meet the limitations of both brightener and leveler as described in the instant specification pages 21-22 In this case, if a mixture of 50:50 MPS and ZPS were used as the second additive, the ppm ranges for both the brightener and leveler would be met by examples 4 and 5. Chen examples 4 and 5 additionally teach a halogen present in a range between 1 and 50 ppm. Chen also teaches an analogous manufacturing method to that provided in example 1 of instant specification—Chen teaches an electroplating step at the desired current density and formation at the desired temperature “ More specifically, the electroplating step includes: heating the copper electrolytic solution to a predetermined temperature, in which the predetermined temperature is between 50° C. and 60° C., and more preferably between 50° C. and 55° C.; and then forming a current density of 30 A/dm.sup.2 to 80 A/dm.sup.2 between an electrode plate and a rotating electrode drum in the copper electrolytic solution at the predetermined temperature to form the raw foil layer 111 on the rotating electrode drum.” Chen [0047] and “For preparation of the electrolyte, it was adjusted to a copper ion concentration of 100 g/l, a sulfuric acid concentration of 100 g/l, and a chlorine concentration of 30 ppm at a temperature of 55°C … In addition, the plating was carried out at a current density of 60 A/dm2 to prepare a plating with a thickness of 20 pm according to the drum speed adjustment.” Instant spec page 26 line 19. By teaching an electrolytic copper foil with the same or essentially the same composition at that taught by the instant spec, in the same method as taught by the instant spec, the copper foil of Chen would inherently have the same hit rate as the instantly claimed foil. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized)
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein the electrolytic copper foil comprises a plurality of irregularly crystallized grains, and a change ratio of average grain size between before and after heat treatment according to Equation 2 below is 35 % or less: [Equation 2] RGS (Ratio of grain size, %) = [(Gt – GI / GI ) X 100] wherein in Equation 2, GT is an average grain size after heat treatment, and GI is an average grain size before heat treatment. (“In addition, in the present embodiment, a grain size of each crystal grain of the electrolytic copper foil 110 that is treated by the heat treatment step is between 90% and 130% of a grain size of each crystal grain of the electrolytic copper foil 110 that is not treated by the heat treatment step, and is preferably between 95% and 120%.” Chen [0030]. This anticipates the instantly claimed range.)
Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
A secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 11. (“In the present embodiment, the above-described electrolytic copper foil 110 can be applied to a lithium ion secondary battery E, and can be used as a material of the negative electrode 100 of the lithium ion secondary battery E.” Chen [0071])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200350620 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil is in a range from 3 to 70 pm. (“the thickness of the electrolytic copper foil 110 is preferably between 2 micrometers (μm) and 20 micrometers, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.” Chen [0022])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2-20 μm for the thickness of the electrolytic copper foil overlaps the claimed range of 3-70 μm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, further comprising an anti-corrosion layer formed on a surface of the electrolytic copper foil, wherein the anti-corrosion layer comprises chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), a silane compound, a nitrogen compound, or a combination thereof. (“Step S130 includes: performing an anti-oxidation treatment step which includes: forming a first oxidation resistant layer 112a on the first surface S1 of the raw foil layer 111, and forming a second oxidation resistant layer 112b on the second surface S2 of the raw foil layer 111, so that the raw foil layer 111, the first oxidation resistant layer 112a, and the second oxidation resistant layer 112b are collectively formed into an electrolytic copper foil 110.” Chen [0053] and “More specifically, the anti-oxidation treatment step includes: electroplating or impregnating the raw foil layer 111 with a treatment solution including the non-copper metal element (i.e. at least one of chromium, zinc, nickel, molybdenum, manganese, and phosphorus),” Chen [0054]. In this case, the anti-corrosion layer is formed via the anti-oxidation step, which, if chromium were used, would meet the limitations of claim 18.)
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil is in a range from 3 to 70 μm. (“the thickness of the electrolytic copper foil 110 is preferably between 2 micrometers (μm) and 20 micrometers, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.” Chen [0022])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2-20 μm for the thickness of the electrolytic copper foil overlaps the claimed range of 3-70 μm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 11, further comprising an anti- corrosion layer formed on a surface of the electrolytic copper foil, wherein the anti-corrosion layer comprises chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), a silane compound, a nitrogen compound, or a combination thereof. (“Step S130 includes: performing an anti-oxidation treatment step which includes: forming a first oxidation resistant layer 112a on the first surface S1 of the raw foil layer 111, and forming a second oxidation resistant layer 112b on the second surface S2 of the raw foil layer 111, so that the raw foil layer 111, the first oxidation resistant layer 112a, and the second oxidation resistant layer 112b are collectively formed into an electrolytic copper foil 110.” Chen [0053] and “More specifically, the anti-oxidation treatment step includes: electroplating or impregnating the raw foil layer 111 with a treatment solution including the non-copper metal element (i.e. at least one of chromium, zinc, nickel, molybdenum, manganese, and phosphorus),” Chen [0054]. In this case, the anti-corrosion layer is formed via the anti-oxidation step, which, if chromium were used, would meet the limitations of claim 18.)
Claim(s) 4-5, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200350620 A1) in view of Chae (KR 20190025418A).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Chen is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 3, wherein the average grain size after heat treatment is in a range from 0.5 to 2.0 pm, and the average grain size before heat treatment is in a range from 0.3 to 1.5 pm.
However, Chae teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Chen. Specifically, Chae teaches an electrolytic copper foil whose grain sizes fall within the claimed range:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 3, wherein the average grain size after heat treatment is in a range from 0.5 to 2.0 pm, and the average grain size before heat treatment is in a range from 0.3 to 1.5 pm. (“The crystalline particles contained in the copper layer 110 have an average particle size of 0.7 to 1.5 μm before and after the heat treatment at 190 μm for 1 hour. More specifically, over the cross-section of the copper layer 110 cut in the thickness direction of the copper layer 110, the average grain size of the crystalline particles is 0.7 to 1.0 μm in both the heat treatment and the heat treatment for 1 hour at 190 ° C.” Chae [0073]. This range anticipates the claimed range for the same parameter.)
Chae and Chen are considered to be analogous because they are both drawn to copper foils to be used in lithium secondary batteries. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copper foil of Chen to have the specific grain sizes of Chae in order to have control over the tensile strength being within the desired range, and make sure that the heat treatment doesn’t change the grain sizes too much such that it would be undesirable. (“On the other hand, when the average grain size of the crystalline particles contained in the copper layer 110 is out of the range of 0.7 to 1.5 μm, the tensile strength at room temperature (25 C -15 C) of the copper foil 101 is in the range of 40 to 60 kgf /mm Or the high temperature tensile strength may deviate from the range of 36 to 55 kgf / mm” Chae [0075])
The modifications made to Chen to incorporate the grain structure of Chae would meet the additional limitations of claims 5 and 14-15 without requiring any further modification or motivation, as by using the specific grain sizes the tensile strength is optimized within the claimed and desirable range.
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Chen is silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein each of a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil after heat treatment and a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil before heat treatment is 45 kgf/mm2 or more.
However, Chae teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that are not found in Chen. Specifically, Chae teaches an electrolytic copper foil whose tensile strength falls within the claimed range:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein each of a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil after heat treatment and a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil before heat treatment is 45 kgf/mm2 or more. (“The copper foil 102 according to another embodiment of the present invention has a tensile strength at room temperature … of 40 to 60 kgf / mm2 and a high temperature tensile strength of 36 to 55 kgf / mm2 after heat treatment at 190 C for 1 hour.” Chae [0090])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of between 36-55 kgf/mm2 as the tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil after heat treatment overlaps the claimed range of 45 kgf/mm2 or more for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Chen is silent on the following elements of claim 14:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein the average grain size after heat treatment is in a range from 0.5 to 2.0 pm, and the average grain size before heat treatment is in a range from 0.3 to 1.5 pm.
However, Chae teaches all of the elements of claim 14 that are not found in Chae:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein the average grain size after heat treatment is in a range from 0.5 to 2.0 pm, and the average grain size before heat treatment is in a range from 0.3 to 1.5 pm. (“The crystalline particles contained in the copper layer 110 have an average particle size of 0.7 to 1.5 μm before and after the heat treatment at 190 μm for 1 hour. More specifically, over the cross-section of the copper layer 110 cut in the thickness direction of the copper layer 110, the average grain size of the crystalline particles is 0.7 to 1.0 μm in both the heat treatment and the heat treatment for 1 hour at 190 ° C.” Chae [0073])
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Chen is silent on the following elements of claim 15:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein each of a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil after heat treatment and a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil before heat treatment is 45 kgf/mm2 or more.
However, Chae teaches all of the elements of claim 15 that are not found in Chen:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein each of a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil after heat treatment and a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil before heat treatment is 45 kgf/mm2 or more. (“The copper foil 102 according to another embodiment of the present invention has a tensile strength at room temperature … of 40 to 60 kgf / mm2 and a high temperature tensile strength of 36 to 55 kgf / mm2 after heat treatment at 190 C for 1 hour.” Chae [0090])
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20200350620 A1) in view of Kim (US 20220200010 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Chen is silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein a roughness of each of the one surface and the another surface of the electrolytic copper foil is in a range from 0.5 to 5.0 pm, and a difference in surface roughness between the one surface and the another surface is 2.0 pm or less.
However, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Chen. Specifically, Kim teaches:
The electrolytic copper foil of claim 1, wherein a roughness of each of the one surface and the another surface of the electrolytic copper foil is in a range from 0.5 to 5.0 pm, and a difference in surface roughness between the one surface and the another surface is 2.0 pm or less. (“In the electrolytic copper foil 102 shown in FIG. 4, surface roughnesses (Rz1 and Rz2) of the first and second surfaces S1 and S2 may be 2.5 μm or less, and a difference (|Rz1−Rz2|) between the surface roughness (Rz1) of the first surface and the surface roughness (Rz2) of the second surface may be 0.65 μm or less.” Kim [0103])
Kim and Chen are considered to be analogous for the reasons described above for claim 6. In addition to the above modifications, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the copper foil to have the surface roughness of Kim in order to improve the adhesion of the copper foil and the active material layers (“ it is known that the adhesion strength between the electrolytic copper foil 101 and the active material layers 120a and 120b can be improved by controlling the surface roughness (Rz) of the electrolytic copper foil 101” Kim [0070]; “When the surface roughnesses (Rz1 and Rz2) exceed 2.5 μm, the first and second surfaces S1 and S2 of the electrolytic copper foil 101 are excessively non-uniform, and thus, the coating uniformity of an anode active material is lowered. Accordingly, adhesion between the electrolytic copper foil 101 and the first and second active material layers 120a and 120b is significantly reduced.” Kim [0071], and “ When the difference between the surface roughness of the first and second surfaces exceeds 0.65 μm, an active material is not uniformly applied on the first and second surfaces S1 and S2 due to the difference in surface roughness (Rz) of the first and second surfaces S1 and S2. Accordingly, a difference in electrical and physical properties between the both surfaces S1 and S2 may occur during charging/discharging of a secondary battery, and thus, the capacity retention rate and lifetime of the secondary battery may be reduced.” Kim [0072])
Regarding claim 17, no further modification or motivation would be required in addition to what is stated above, other than using the electrolytic copper foil as an anode current collector in a lithium secondary battery, which would be an obvious use of the foil as that is its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Chen is silent on the following elements of claim 17:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein a roughness of each of the one surface and the another surface of the electrolytic copper foil is in a range from 0.5 to 5.0 μm, and a difference in surface roughness between the one surface and the another surface is 2.0 μm or less.
However, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 17 that are not found in Chen. Specifically, Kim teaches:
The electrode of claim 11, wherein a roughness of each of the one surface and the another surface of the electrolytic copper foil is in a range from 0.5 to 5.0 μm, and a difference in surface roughness between the one surface and the another surface is 2.0 μm or less. (“In the electrolytic copper foil 102 shown in FIG. 4, surface roughnesses (Rz1 and Rz2) of the first and second surfaces S1 and S2 may be 2.5 μm or less, and a difference (|Rz1−Rz2|) between the surface roughness (Rz1) of the first surface and the surface roughness (Rz2) of the second surface may be 0.65 μm or less.” Kim [0103])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752