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
Claims 6-11 are new. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been rejected too.
Claim Objection
There seems to be a typo in claim 6 line 2. “The second metal layer 2” should instead be “the second metal layer.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0310144, hereinafter Asada, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0196755, hereinafter Park.
With respect to claims 1, 3-5, and 11, Asada teaches a nickel-coated (reads on laminated) copper foil (instant claim 1) that is used for leads and negative electrode collectors (instant claim 3) of various batteries such as a lithium-ion secondary battery (instant claim 3) (Asada, [0022]).
However, Asada fails to provide XRD data and therefore explicitly teach an X-ray
diffraction peak having a full width at half maximum of 0.3 degrees to 1.2 degrees (instant
claim 1), a tensile strength being 800 to 1300 MPa (instant claim 11), nor negative active material silicon (instant claim 5) being on the negative electrode current collector (instant claim 4).
Park teaches an electrode assembly for a secondary battery that contains a negative
electrode (Park, Abstract). This negative electrode contains a negative electrode active material
layer that contains silicon and is deposited on a negative electrode collector (Park, Abstract and
[0007]). This negative electrode current collector made of stainless steel, nickel, copper,
titanium, or an alloy thereof and has a tensile stress of 294.0 through 970.0 MPa (Park, [0047-
0048]). This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the high tensile strength current collector of Park in the nickel coated copper foil of Asada because it increases the capacity per volume of the negative
electrode without degrading the battery performance (Park, [0090] to [0092]). According to the
instant specification ([0018]), the full width at half maximum of the X-ray diffraction peak being
between 0.3 and 1.2 degrees is due to the high tensile strength of 800 MPa to 1300 MPa.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that because a current collector
contains nickel and copper and has a high tensile strength within the range of the instant spec, the current collector would also have an overlapping range of the full width at half maximum of
the X-ray diffraction peak.
Regarding claim 6, Asada and Park teach the negative electrode according to claim 1. Additionally, Asada teaches that the content of Ni in the second metal layer 2 is 60% by mass or more and 100% or less (‘the nickel-coated copper foil 1 includes a copper layer 2 made of Cu and a nickel plating layer 3 that covers the surface of copper layer 2 and is made of Ni’ [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Asada and Park teach the negative electrode according to claim 1. Additionally, Asada teaches that the second metal layer is directly laminated on each side of the first metal layer (‘the nickel plating layer made of Ni or a Ni alloy is formed on the surface of the coper foil by the plating process. This plating process can be selected from various generally known plating processes such as electrolytic plating, strike plating, and electroless plating’ [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Asada and Park teach the negative electrode according to claim 1. Additionally, Asada teaches that the ratio of a total thickness of the second material layers to a thickness of the first metal layer is 0.6 or more and 1.0 or less (‘the nickel-coated copper foil 10 has an overall thickness of 200 µm or less’ [0032] and ‘the thicknesses of the nickel plating layers 12 and 13 (reads on instant’s second metal layer) of the nickel-coated copper foil 10 are both 0.01 µm or more and 0.5 µm or less’ [0033] This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 10, Asada and Park teach the negative electrode according to claim 9. Additionally, Asada teaches that the thickness of the second metal layer is 0.3µm or more and 4µm or less (‘the thicknesses of the nickel plating layers 12 and 13 of the nickel-coated copper foil 10 are both 0.01 µm or more and 0.5 µm or less’ [0033]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada and Park as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0388824,
hereinafter Sachdev.
Asada and Park teach a negative current collector for a secondary lithium-ion battery
that contains nickel and copper and an overlapping range of the full width at half maximum of
the X-ray diffraction peak of 0.3 to 1.2 degrees as discussed above.
However, Asada and Park fail to teach the current collector containing carbon,
phosphorus, or tungsten.
Sachdev teaches a lithium battery cell that contains a negative electrode with a current
collector and a lithium intercalation host material applied thereto (Sachdev, [0013]). Similar to
modified Asada, Sachdev teaches the anode current collector can include copper, nickel,
stainless steel, or any other appropriate electrically conductive material known to skilled
artisans and can be treated with highly electrically conductive materials including carbon
(Sachdev, [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbon-based conductive materials of Sachdev in
the negative current collector of Asada and Park because the addition of a highly electrically
conductive material such as carbon is used ‘in order to decrease the electrical resistance
between the current collect and the host material’ (Sachdev, [0023]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada and Park as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0118775, hereinafter Zeng.
Asada and Park teach a negative current collector for a secondary lithium-ion battery
that contains nickel and copper and an overlapping range of the full width at half maximum of
the X-ray diffraction peak of 0.3 to 1.2 degrees as discussed above.
However, Asada and Park fail to teach the nickel-containing crystal having a face-centered cubic structure.
Zeng teaches copper nanowires where the copper phase is protected by its metallic surface coating of nickel. A nickel coating prevents the formation of copper oxides and will significantly reduce the juncture resistance [0033]. To confirm the composite nature of CuNi nanowires, XRD patterns, EDX line analysis and chemical mappings of our prepared samples were obtained. To sets of major diffraction peaks are well resolved, confirmed that both metals have the same fcc (face-centered cubic) crystal system [0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the nickel coated copper of Asada and Park with a face-centered cubic structure because copper and nickel are generally thought to exhibit solid solubility across the whole compositional range [0036]. Additionally, as mentioned above, a nickel coating prevents the formation of copper oxides and will significantly reduce the juncture resistance and allow the nanowire to be magnetically guidable [0033].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1 and 3-5, applicant argues that because the art does not explicitly teach the claimed X-ray diffraction range and because tensile strength does not cause specific X-ray diffraction patterns, the combination of references does not disclose or imply the claimed range. Additionally, applicant argues that the tensile strength disclosed in Park does not correspond to the tensile strength in the instant application. The examiner respectfully disagrees because while it is understood the tensile strength does not cause a specific diffraction pattern, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01). Asada teaches nickel coated copper in which the nickel is laminated onto the copper through electroless plating and when electroless plating is adopted, a nickel plating layer containing a small amount (e.g. 5% or less) of phosphorus can be formed [0038]. This is similar to that of instant specification’s example 3 [0036]. Additionally, the nickel coated copper of Asada has the same thicknesses and nickel content as claimed [0023] and [0032-0033]. However, Table 1 of the instant specifications show that while the Ni content and the thicknesses overlap for both Examples 1-10 and Comparative Examples 1-4, the examples that do have overlapping XRD values are the examples with tensile strengths over 800 MPa. Park overcomes this deficiency by teaching that the negative electrode current collector can be made of stainless steel, nickel, copper, titanium, or an alloy thereof and has a tensile stress of 294.0 through 970.0 MPa (Park, [0047-0048]). While Park does not explicitly teach an example with nickel coated copper, Park does teach that it is important to have a collector with high tensile strength because it increases the capacity per volume of the negative electrode without degrading the battery performance (Park, [0090] to [0092]). The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain (MPEP 2123). Therefore, it would be obvious that the nickel coated copper structure of Asada with the high tensile strength of Park would result in nickel coated copper with an XRD value within the claimed range of instant claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights