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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1–9 are pending.
Claims 1–5 are being treated on their merits.
Claims 6–9 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0194890 A1.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 24 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 50 (e.g., FIG. 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: COPPER FOIL INCLUDING PROTECTIVE LAYER ON COPPER FILM, ELECTRODE COMPRISING THE SAME, SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “spraying a 5±1 % NaCl solution.” It is unclear on the basis (i.e., mass, mole, volume) for the NaCl solution determination. Each basis is exclusive of each other (e.g., 5 wt% NaCl = 5 g NaCl in 95 g H2O; 5 mol% NaCl = 14 wt% NaCl = 14 g NaCl in 86 g H2O; 5 vol% NaCl = 11 wt% NaCl = 11 g NaCl in 89 g H2O). Therefore, the limitation “spraying a 5±1 % NaCl solution” is indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein tensile strength 2 is 28 kgf/mm2 or more.” Claim 1, which claim 2 is directly dependent, recites the limitation “tensile strength 2” and provides antecedent basis for the limitation “tensile strength 2.” However, claim 2 does not include “the” or “said” indicating “tensile strength 2” recited in claim 2 is further limiting or referencing “tensile strength 2” recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if “tensile strength 2” recited in claim 2 is further limiting or referencing “tensile strength 2” recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein elongation 2 is in a range of 3.0% to 12%.” Claim 1, which claim 3 is directly dependent, recites the limitation “elongation 2” and provides antecedent basis for the limitation “elongation 2.” However, claim 3 does not include “the” or “said” indicating “elongation 2” recited in claim 3 is further limiting or referencing “elongation 2” recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if “elongation 2” recited in claim 3 is further limiting or referencing “elongation 2” recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a protective layer.” Claim 1, which claim 4 is directly dependent, recites the limitation “a protective layer” and provides antecedent basis for the limitation “a protective layer.” However, claim 4 does not include “the” or “said” indicating “a protective layer” recited in claim 4 is further limiting or referencing “a protective layer” recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear if “a protective layer” recited in claim 4 is further limiting or referencing “a protective layer” recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the protective layer.” Claim 4, which claim 5 is directly dependent, recites the limitation “a protective layer;” and claim 1, which claim 5 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation “a protective layer.” It is unclear if “the protective layer” recited in claim 5 is further limiting “a protective layer” recited in claim 1 or “a protective layer” recited in claim 4.
Claim Interpretation
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as well as for composition claims.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971). See also Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
Claims 1–5 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 Jin et al. (US 2020/0181790 A1, hereinafter Jin).
Regarding claims 1–3, Jin discloses a copper foil (102, [0209]) comprising:
a copper film (110) including 99.9 wt % or more of copper (TABLE 1, [0208]); and
a protective layer (211) formed on the copper film (110, [0208]),
Jin does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the copper foil has a tensile strength index of 3.0 kgf/mm2 or less, and
the copper foil has an elongation index of 2.1% or less,
wherein the tensile strength index is calculated by Equation 1 below,
tensile strength index = |tensile strength 2 - tensile strength 1| [Equation 1]
wherein, tensile strength 1 in Equation 1 is a tensile strength of a sample before a salt spray test, and tensile strength 2 in Equation 1 is a tensile strength of the sample after the salt spray test
the elongation index is calculated by Equation 2 below,
elongation index = |elongation 2 - elongation 1| [Equation 2]
wherein elongation 1 in Equation 2 is an elongation of the sample before the salt spray test, and elongation 2 in Equation 2 is an elongation of the sample after the salt spray test, and
the salt spray test is performed for a total of 72 hours by spraying a 5±1% NaCl solution on the copper foil for 6 cycles,
wherein 1 cycle means that the NaCl solution is sprayed at a temperature of 35±2° C for 2 hours and then is dried for 10 hours;
wherein tensile strength 2 is 28 kgf/mm2 or more; and
wherein elongation 2 is in a range of 3.0% to 12%.
Jin discloses a copper foil that is identical to the claimed copper foil (TABLE 1, [0208]). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The copper foil inherently possesses the claimed tensile strengths and elongations. Therefore, Jin inherently discloses a copper foil having a tensile strength index of 3.0 kgf/mm2 or less, an elongation index of 2.1% or less the tensile strength 2 is 28 kgf/mm2 or more, and the elongation 2 is in a range of 3.0% to 12%.
Regarding claim 4, Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a copper foil, further comprising
a protective layer (212) formed on the copper film (110, [0208]).
Regarding claim 5, Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a copper foil:
wherein the protective layer (211) includes at least one of a chromium compound, a silane compound, and a nitrogen compound (TABLE 1, [0208]).
Claims 1–5 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 Kim et al. (KR 2022-0096493 A, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1–3, Kim discloses a copper foil (101, [0209]) comprising:
a copper film (111) including 99.9 wt % or more of copper (TABLE 1, [0212]); and
a protective layer (112a) formed on the copper film (111, [0214]),
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the copper foil has a tensile strength index of 3.0 kgf/mm2 or less, and
the copper foil has an elongation index of 2.1% or less,
wherein the tensile strength index is calculated by Equation 1 below,
tensile strength index = |tensile strength 2 - tensile strength 1| [Equation 1]
wherein, tensile strength 1 in Equation 1 is a tensile strength of a sample before a salt spray test, and tensile strength 2 in Equation 1 is a tensile strength of the sample after the salt spray test
the elongation index is calculated by Equation 2 below,
elongation index = |elongation 2 - elongation 1| [Equation 2]
wherein elongation 1 in Equation 2 is an elongation of the sample before the salt spray test, and elongation 2 in Equation 2 is an elongation of the sample after the salt spray test, and
the salt spray test is performed for a total of 72 hours by spraying a 5±1% NaCl solution on the copper foil for 6 cycles,
wherein 1 cycle means that the NaCl solution is sprayed at a temperature of 35±2° C for 2 hours and then is dried for 10 hours;
wherein tensile strength 2 is 28 kgf/mm2 or more; and
wherein elongation 2 is in a range of 3.0% to 12%.
Kim discloses a copper foil that is identical to the claimed copper foil (TABLE 1; [0212], [0214]). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The copper foil inherently possesses the claimed tensile strengths and elongations. Therefore, Kim inherently discloses a copper foil having a tensile strength index of 3.0 kgf/mm2 or less, an elongation index of 2.1% or less the tensile strength 2 is 28 kgf/mm2 or more, and the elongation 2 is in a range of 3.0% to 12%.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a copper foil, further comprising
a protective layer (112b) formed on the copper film (111, [0214]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a copper foil:
wherein the protective layer (112a) includes at least one of a chromium compound, a silane compound, and a nitrogen compound (TABLE 1, [0214]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights