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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on August 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
The Office Action relies on Pokhrel for this feature, but Pokhrel does not disclose the claimed suppressor concentration. Rather, Pokhrel states that suppressors are preferably present at concentrations of 0.5 g/L to 15 g/L based on the weight of the composition. That range corresponds to 500 ppm to 15,000 ppm, which is at least an order of magnitude higher than the claimed 15 to 30 ppm suppressor concentration.
Nor does Hayashi disclose the claimed low polyether suppressor concentration of 15 to 30 ppm in the context of producing electrodeposited copper foil. To the contrary, Hayashi discloses suppressor amounts broadly and includes examples using substantially higher suppressor amounts, such as 500 ppm.
Accordingly, Pokhrel and Hayashi do not establish that the electrolyte recited in the pending claims lacks a contribution over the prior art.
This is not found persuasive because JP 2013091825 (‘825) in view of Saito et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0287020 A1) teach the electrolyte as presently claimed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 16-23 (electrolyte), 24-25 (electrolyte composition) and 26-29 (electrodeposited copper foil) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 31, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12
Line 3, please delete the word “comprised”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP
2013091825 (‘825) in view of Saito et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0287020 A1).
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘825 teach a method for producing an electrodeposited copper foil (= a method for manufacturing electrolytic copper foil) [ρ [0018]], comprising:
• continuously forming the electrodeposited copper foil (= peeling the deposited copper off the surface of the cathode drum and winding it up continuously) [ρ [0002]] in an
electroforming cell having a rotating drum-shaped cathode (= rotating the cathode drum) [ρ [0002]], a stationary (= a titanium cathode drum facing the anode) [ρ [0018]] anode (= an insoluble anode made of titanium coated with a platinum group element or its oxide element) [ρ [0002]] and an electrolyte (= a sulfuric acid-copper sulfate aqueous solution as the electrolyte) [ρ [0002]], wherein the electrolyte comprises:
- copper, preferably in the form of copper ions, at a concentration of at least 60 g/L (= 280 g/l of copper sulfate pentahydrate (CuSO₄۰5H₂O)) [ρ [0039]];
- a halogen ion at a concentration comprised between 30 and 50 ppm (= chloride ions are preferably added to the electrolyte solution to a concentration of 5 to 40 ppm) [ρ [0035]];
- 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonate at a concentration (= mercaptopropylsulfonic acid (MPS) or bis(3-sulfopropyl) disulfide (SPS)) [ρ [0018]];
- a nitrogen-containing polymer leveler at a concentration comprised between 5 and 12 ppm (= furthermore, polyethyleneimine is preferably added to the electrolyte solution at a concentration of 0.03 to 30 ppm) [ρ [0033]], the nitrogen-containing polymer leveler having an average molecular weight Mw comprised between 1 000 and 30 000 g/mol (= the average
molecular weight of the polyethyleneimine is preferably 10,000 to 15,000) [ρ [0020]]; and
- a polyether suppressor at a concentration comprised between 15 and 30 ppm (= furthermore, the concentration of hydroxyethylcellulose, polypropylene glycol, or polyethylene glycol added to the electrolyte solution is preferably 0.07 to 60 ppm) [ρ [0031]], the polyether suppressor having an average molecular weight Mw comprised between 500 and 12 000 g/mol (= preferably, the molecular weights of each of the hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC), polypropylene glycol (PPG), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) are less than 250,000) [ρ [0019]].
JP ‘825 does not explicitly teach wherein the 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonate is at a concentration comprised between 5 and 15 ppm.
JP ‘825 teaches that:
The present invention relates to a method for manufacturing electrolytic copper foil for lithium-ion secondary batteries, which involves using a sulfuric acid-copper sulfate aqueous solution as the electrolyte, an insoluble anode made of titanium coated with a platinum group element or its oxide element, and a titanium cathode drum facing the anode, and passing a direct current between the two electrodes. The manufacturing method involves adding one of hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC), polypropylene glycol (PPG), or polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyethyleneimine (PEI), 3-mercaptopropylsulfonic acid (MPS) or bis(3-sulfopropyl) disulfide (SPS), and chloride ions to the electrolyte (ρ [0018]).
Like JP ‘825, Saito teaches electrodepositing copper foil from a drum surface (page 1, [0010]).
Copper sulfate plating bath for producing the electrodeposited copper foil is added with an organic sulfur based compound and other at least one kind of organic compound as additives. As an organic sulfur based compound, 3-mercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid and bis(3-sulfopropyl)disulfide, etc. may be mentioned. As other organic compounds, a glue, polymeric surfactant and nitrogen containing organic compound, etc. may be used. As a glue, those having low-molecular weight are preferable. As a polymeric surfactant, hydroxyethyl cellulose, polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyethylene glycol dimethyl ether and polyethylene oxide, etc. may be mentioned. As a nitrogen-containing organic compound, polyethylene imine and polyacrylic acid amide, etc. may be mentioned. As the additives, an organic sulfur based
compound and other at least one kind of organic compound are added by changing the amounts and ratio in a range of 0.1 to 100 ppm. Furthermore, a measurement result of TOC (TOC = total organic carbon, a carbon amount in organics included in a solution) is preferably 400 ppm or smaller when adding the additives. When a value of TOC is large, much impurities are included in the copper foil to largely affect recrystallization, etc., so that the TOC value in the plating bath is preferably 400 ppm or smaller (page 2, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonate taught by JP ‘825 in [0018] with wherein the 3-mercapto-1-propane sulfonate is at a concentration comprised between 5 and 15 ppm. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because adding 0.1 to 100 ppm of 3-mercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid would have kept the TOC (TOC = total organic carbon, a carbon amount in organics included in a solution) value small because when the value of TOC is large, much impurities are included in the copper foil to largely affect recrystallization, etc. as taught by Saito in [0026].
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the average molecular weight Mw of the
nitrogen-containing polymer leveler is comprised between 1 500 and 15 000 g/mol (= the average molecular weight of the polyethyleneimine is preferably 10,000 to 15,000) [ρ [0020]].
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing polymer leveler is selected from polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyallylamine, polyethyleneimine, and mixtures thereof (= the manufacturing method involves adding polyethyleneimine (PEI) to the electrolyte) [ρ [0018]].
Regarding claim 4, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing polymer leveler is
present in the electrolyte at a concentration comprised between 6 and 11 ppm (= furthermore, polyethyleneimine is preferably added to the electrolyte solution at a concentration of 0.03 to 30 ppm) [ρ [0033]].
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the average molecular weight Mw of the polyether suppressor is comprised between 500 and 6 000 g/mol (= preferably, the molecular weights of each of the hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC), polypropylene glycol (PPG), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) are less than 250,000) [ρ [0019]].
Regarding claim 6, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the polyether suppressor is selected from polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, copolymers of polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol, and mixtures thereof (= the manufacturing method involves adding one of hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC), polypropylene glycol (PPG), or polyethylene glycol (PEG) to the electrolyte) [ρ [0018]].
Regarding claim 7, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the polyether suppressor is present at a
concentration comprised between 12 and 28 ppm (= furthermore, the concentration of hydroxyethylcellulose, polypropylene glycol, or polyethylene glycol added to the electrolyte
solution is preferably 0.07 to 60 ppm) [ρ [0031]].
Regarding claim 8, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the copper is added to the electrolyte as copper sulfate (= copper sulfate) [ρ [0018]].
Regarding claim 9, JP ‘825 and Saito teach at least the method of claims 1-8 as applied above. JP ‘825 does not explicitly teach wherein copper is present in the electrolyte at a concentration comprised between 60 and 100 g/L.
JP ‘825 teaches a method for manufacturing electrolytic copper foil for lithium-ion secondary batteries, which involves using a sulfuric acid-copper sulfate aqueous solution as the electrolyte (ρ [0018]).
Saito teaches:
producing a copper foil by performing electrodeposited copper plating under a condition of using a copper sulfate bath, wherein a copper concentration is 50 to 80 g/l, a sulfuric acid concentration is 30 to 70 g/l, a solution temperature is 35 to 45o C., a chloride concentration is 0.01 to 30 ppm, an adding concentration of a total of an organic sulfur based compound, low molecular weight glue and polymeric polysaccharide is 0.1 to 100 ppm and TOC (total organic carbon) is 400 ppm or smaller, and a current density is 20 to 50 A/dm2; and performing a surface treatment on an M surface of the copper foil to attain Rz of 1.0 µm or smaller and Ra of 0.2 µm or smaller on the M surface (page 1, [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copper taught by JP ‘825 in [0018] with wherein copper is present in the electrolyte at a concentration comprised between 60 and 100 g/L. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this
modification because the feature of using a copper concentration of 50 to 80 g/l has already been employed for the same purpose of electrodepositing a copper foil as taught by Saito in [0017], and thus, applying this feature, with corresponding effect, to the electrolyte of JP ‘825 would have been suitable to produce the electrolytic copper foil.
Regarding claim 10, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the halogen ion is a chloride and/or bromide ion (= the manufacturing method involves adding chloride ions to the electrolyte) [ρ [0018]].
Regarding claim 11, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the halogen ion is present in the
electrolyte at a concentration comprised between 35 and 50 ppm (= chloride ions are preferably added to the electrolyte solution to a concentration of 5 to 40 ppm) [ρ [0035]].
Regarding claim 12, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the electrodeposited copper foil is formed by applying a current density between the cathode and the anode (= passing a direct current between the two electrodes while rotating the cathode drum at a constant speed) [ρ [0002]], the current density being comprised between 40 and 80 A/dm2 (= an electrolytic current density of 40 to 60 A/dm2) [ρ [0037]].
Regarding claim 13, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the electrolyte has a temperature higher than 50 oC (= an electrolyte temperature of 40 to 60°C) [ρ [0037]].
Regarding claim 14, JP ‘825 teaches wherein the method is a continuous process (=
depositing copper on the surface of the cathode drum, and then peeling the deposited copper
off the surface of the cathode drum and winding it up continuously) [ρ [0002]].
JP ‘825 and Saito teach at least the method of claims 1-8 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte has a life time of more than three days.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because modified JP ‘825 teaches a similar electrolyte as presently claimed. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable (MPEP § 2112.01(II)).
Furthermore, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art
composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render an old composition patentably new to the discoverer (MPEP § 2112(I)).
Regarding claim 15, JP ‘825 and Saito teach at least the method of claims 1-14 as applied above. JP ‘825 does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte further comprises sulfuric acid at a concentration comprised between 65 and 85 g/L.
JP ‘825 teaches a method for manufacturing electrolytic copper foil for lithium-ion secondary batteries, which involves using a sulfuric acid-copper sulfate aqueous solution as the electrolyte (ρ [0018]).
Saito teaches:
producing a copper foil by performing electrodeposited copper plating under a condition of using a copper sulfate bath, wherein a copper concentration is 50 to 80 g/l, a sulfuric acid concentration is 30 to 70 g/l, a solution temperature is 35 to 45o C., a chloride concentration is 0.01 to 30 ppm, an adding concentration of a total of an organic sulfur based compound, low molecular weight glue and polymeric polysaccharide is 0.1 to 100 ppm and TOC (total organic carbon) is 400 ppm or smaller, and a current density is 20 to 50 A/dm2; and performing a surface treatment on an M surface of the copper foil to attain Rz of 1.0 µm or smaller and Ra of 0.2 µm or smaller on the M surface (page 1, [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfuric acid taught by JP ‘825 in [0018] with wherein the electrolyte further comprises sulfuric acid at a concentration comprised between 65 and 85 g/L. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the feature of using a sulfuric acid concentration of 30 to 70 g/l has already been employed for the same purpose of electrodepositing a copper foil as taught by Saito in [0017], and thus, applying this feature, with corresponding effect, to
the electrolyte of JP ‘825 would have been suitable to produce the electrolytic copper foil.
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sano et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0191798 A1) is cited to teach:
The present invention is also directed to a process for producing an electrodeposited copper foil with low roughness surface having surface roughness (Rz) of 2.0 µm or less, surface
uniformity provided with low roughness without uneven surge and exhibiting a percent elongation of 10.0% or higher at 180o C., comprising passing a direct current between an insoluble anode consisting of a titanium plate coated with a Platinum Group element or oxide thereof and a titanium drum as a cathode counter to the anode in an electrolyte of an aqueous solution of sulfuric acid/copper sulfate, wherein the electrolyte contains an oxyethylene surfactant, a polyethyleneimine or its derivative, a sulfonate of active organosulfur compound and chloride ions (page 2, [0016]).
JP 2004263289 is cited to teach:
A method for producing electrolytic copper foil in which an aqueous sulfuric acid-copper sulfate solution is used as the electrolyte, an insoluble anode made of a titanium plate coated with a platinum element or an oxide element thereof is used, a titanium drum is used as the cathode opposite the anode, and a direct current is passed between the two electrodes, characterized in that an oxyethylene-based surfactant, polyethyleneimine or a derivative thereof, a sulfonate salt of an active organic sulfur compound and chloride ions are present in the electrolyte to obtain a low-roughness electrolytic copper foil having a surface roughness Rz of 2.0 μm or less, a uniformly low-roughness surface without unevenness or undulation, and an elongation rate of 10.0% or more at 180 °C (ρ [0017]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights