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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by English translation of JP2013077462A (Fujisawa).
Regarding claim 1, Fujisawa teaches a copper foil as a current collector for a lithium battery (lithium ion secondary battery), and more particularly to a copper foil (current collector) that deposits a negative electrode active material to constitute a negative electrode [p. 1 lines 14-16, p. 3 lines 1-4]. Fujisawa teaches a laminated body comprising: a first metal layer containing copper [p. 1 line 39]; and a second metal layer containing nickel and laminated directly on the first metal layer [p. 3 lines 1-5] , wherein a first surface of the second metal layer is a surface in contact with the first metal layer, a second surface of the second metal layer is a reverse surface of the first surface, a thickness direction of the second metal layer is a direction approximately perpendicular to the first surface and oriented from the first surface toward the second surface [p. 4 line 17-24], a unit of a content of nickel in the second metal layer is % by mass [p. 3 line 5-6, p. 5 line 24-25], and the content of nickel in the second metal layer increases along the thickness direction [p. 8 lines 2—60 and p. 9 line 1-3].
Regarding claim 3, Fujisawa teaches wherein the second metal layer consists of a plurality of nickel-containing layers laminated in the thickness direction, and a content of nickel in each of the plurality of nickel-containing layers is different from each other [p. 4 lines 5-60, p. 5 line 1-2, p. 5 lines 41-47].
Regarding claim 5, Fujisawa teaches wherein the content of nickel in the second metal layer is the lowest in the vicinity of the first surface, increases stepwise along the thickness direction, and is the highest in the vicinity of the second surface [p. 3 line 5-6, p. 4 line 1-10; line 23-32] [p. 8 lines 2—60 and p. 9 line 1-3].
Regarding claim 6, Fujisawa teaches wherein the content of nickel in the second metal layer is the lowest in the vicinity of the first surface, increases continuously along the thickness direction, and is the highest in the vicinity of the second surface [p. 3 line 5-6; p. 4 line 1-10; lines 23-32] [p. 8 lines 2—60 and p. 9 line 1-3].
Regarding claim 7, Fujisawa teaches a negative electrode current collector for a lithium ion secondary battery, the negative electrode current collector comprising the laminated body according to claim 1 [p. 1 line 39-40].
Regarding claim 8, Fujisawa teaches a negative electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery, the negative electrode comprising: the negative electrode current collector according to claim 7; and a negative electrode active material layer containing a negative electrode active material, wherein the negative electrode active material layer is laminated directly on the second surface of the second metal layer [p. 1 line 31-40].
Regarding claim 9, Fujisawa teaches the negative electrode according to the negative electrode according to claim 8 wherein the negative electrode active material contains silicon [p. 1 36-37].
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2013077462A (Fujisawa) in view of US20220127743A1 (Kaidi)
Regarding claim 2, Fujisawa does not teach wherein the second metal layer further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of phosphorus and tungsten. Kaidi teaches A composite copper foil contains a carrier layer, a release layer and an ultra-thin copper layer in this order. In the composite copper foil, the release layer includes a binary alloy or a ternary alloy comprising nickel, and is formed into an amorphous layer, and the ultra-thin copper layer is peelable from the carrier layer [abs]. Kaidi teaches the second metal contains tungsten [0034, 0077]. 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 Fujisawa in view of Kaidi and incorporate the Tungsten in the second metal layer as doing so provides a composite copper foil that may not cause workability and quality problems because an increase in peel strength is small at high temperatures and a carrier layer may be easily peeled off from an ultra-thin copper layer [0013].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach the recitation claim in claim 4, “wherein a thickness of the first metal layer is represented by T1,a thickness of the second metal layer is represented by T2, and T2/T 1 is 0.6 or more and 1.0 or less.”. The closest prior art of record Fujisawa in view of Kaidi teach all the limitations recited in claim 1, however does not teach the relationship required of T2/T1 as claimed. Fujisawa teaches the first metal layer to have a thickness between 0.5-10µm tand the second metal to have a thickness of 5-50nm. Upon calculation, the prior art does not teach a value of T2/T1 to be between 0.6 or more and 1.0 or less; nor does it teach anything close to the required ranges. Neither the cited references or related prior art provide a rationale to include the limitations of claim 4.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/268,643 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both require the following limitations:
A laminated body comprising:
a first metal layer containing copper; and
a second metal layer containing nickel and laminated directly on the first metal layer,
wherein a first surface of the second metal layer is a surface in contact with the first metal layer,
a second surface of the second metal layer is a reverse face of the first surface,
a thickness direction of the second metal layer is a direction approximately perpendicular to the first surface and oriented from the first surface toward the second surface,
a unit of a content of nickel in the second metal layer is % by mass;
wherein the second metal layer further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of phosphorus and tungsten,
wherein a thickness of the first metal layer is represented by T1,
a thickness of the second metal layer is represented by T2, and
T2/T1 is 0.6 or more and 1.0 or less,
the negative electrode current collector comprising the laminated body
a negative electrode active material layer containing a negative electrode active material,
wherein the negative electrode active material layer is laminated directly on the second surface of the second metal layer
wherein the negative electrode active material contains silicon.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/268,394 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both require the following limitations:
A laminated body comprising:
a first metal layer containing copper; and
a second metal layer containing nickel and directly laminated on the first metal layer,
wherein the second metal layer further contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of carbon, phosphorus, and tungsten,
the negative electrode current collector and
a negative electrode active material layer containing a negative electrode active material, wherein
the negative electrode active material layer is directly laminated on the second metal layer,
wherein the negative electrode active material contains silicon.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729