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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12-27-2023 and 12-18-2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20180096903 A [cited in IDS filed 12-18-2024] hereinafter Jeong.
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong teaches an electrode for a secondary battery (paragraphs 4, 23), the electrode comprising: a copper foil (substrate) [100] having a first surface [MS] and a second surface [SS], and a coating (middle) layer [215] formed on the first surface; and an active material [310] formed on the coating (middle) layer (paragraph 80), wherein the surface roughness of the first surface of the copper foil (substrate) is larger than the surface roughness of the second surface of the copper foil (paragraph 46) (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, the Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeong teaches that the coating (middle) layer [215] is provided along protrusions and depressions on the first surface of the copper foil (see figure 6b).
Regarding Claim 3, Jeong teaches that the coating layer [215] has a thickness of 0.3 to 1 µm (paragraph 60) and the electrode has a thickness of up to 70 µm (paragraph 67, 158).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Jeong teaches that the coating layer [215] has a thickness of 0.3 to 1 µm (paragraph 60).
Regarding Claims 6-8, Jeong teaches that the surface roughness of the coating layer [215] is 1 µm or less (paragraph 73), the surface roughness of the first surface is different from the surface roughness of the second surface, and the surface roughness is about 1 µm (paragraph 46). In addition, the prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding Claims 9-11, Jeong teaches that the electrode comprises a first active material layer and a second active material layer, wherein the active material comprises carbon (paragraphs 82-84), and wherein an average particle size of the active material is larger than the gap between protrusions on one surface of the copper foil (paragraphs 91-95).
Regarding Claims 12-14, Jeong teaches that the coating (middle) layer comprises a carbon-based conductive material and a binder, wherein the carbon-based conductive material is included in the active material layer, and the substrate is a copper foil (paragraphs 84, 91-95, 158).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Jeong teaches a secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly (i.e., cathode, anode, and separator disposed therebetween) (paragraph 23); and an electrolyte expected to be accommodated in a battery casing (paragraph 97).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0062199 teaches a copper foil with surface roughness, and the copper foil having a coating (middle) layer and active material layer formed on the coating layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 A 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights