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 .
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 1-2, and 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et. al. (WO 2017123034 A1), in view of Lee, et. al. (US2012040241A1; the Office notes that the first author of this PGPUB has a last name of Kim, and for clarity, the second author is applied to distinguish between the shorthand reference markers) and Metzger, et. al. (US2010187121A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a copper foil (copper foil 100) comprising: a copper film (copper film 110) including 99.9 wt% or more of copper (“[p.3] The copper film 110 of the present invention may contain at least 99 wt% of copper”); and a protective layer (first protective layer 131) formed on the copper film. Kim at [p.3].
However, Kim is silent as to wherein the copper foil has a room temperature water contact angle in a range of 60° to 70°, and a room temperature surface resistivity in a range of 2.4 mΩ/cm to 2.7 mΩ/cm.
Metzger teaches a copper foil for an electrode assembly, “[0071] In another embodiment of the present invention a conductive substrate consisting, for example, essentially of copper or a copper alloy is used. While copper already has a sufficient conductivity for use as electrode material in fuel cells, it does not have sufficient corrosion resistance. Hence, according to the present invention, a metal layer is plated on the copper substrate such as a copper foil. Therefore, according to the present invention, a metal layer is provided on copper substrate to provide sufficient corrosion resistance that the underneath copper does not corrode.” This roughly corresponds to a “protective layer,” and provides “[0159] The Ag coating on a copper substrate shows a sufficient corrosion resistance and a resistance of ≦5 mΩ/cm2.” An encompassing range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05. While Metzger does not directly state the temperature test conditions, a goal of the invention is to develop a direct methanol fuel cell, a configuration which derives a significant benefit in that “[0003] unlike hydrogen, methanol and water are liquids at room temperature,” strongly implying these tests were carried out at room temperature operating conditions of the overall device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the copper foil of Kim, such that its copper foil has a silver protective layer as in Metzger, such that it comprises a surface resistance ≦5 mΩ/cm2 at room temperature, because Metzger teaches a benefit to corrosion resistance.
However, modified Kim is silent as to wherein the copper foil has a room temperature water contact angle in a range of 60° to 70°.
Lee teaches a copper foil for a lithium secondary battery current collector, which “[0003] has an improved structure so as to ensure sufficient adhesion between the current collector and an active material of the lithium secondary battery.” Lee at [0003]. Lee teaches “[0026] Referring to FIG. 4, a water contact angle (θ) between a surface 100 a of the copper foil and a water drop 300 , which determines wettability of the copper foil 100 , should meet a condition of 0 to 90°. In case the water contact (θ) exceeds 90°, wettability is low, so the coating work of the active material 200 is not properly executed, but its adhesion tends to be deteriorated.” Id. at [0026]. Lee elaborates at Claim 1 that “a matte side formed on one surface of the copper foil; and . . . wherein the matte side has a water contact angle between the matte side and a water drop, which determines wettability of the copper foil, of 62 to 86.” Id. at Claim 1. In other words, a water contact angle range of 62 to 86 optimizes wettability, and adhesion deteriorates above 90 degrees. Id. at Claim 1. Lee states crystal structure, specifically texture coefficient, is measured in accordance with standard intensity set forth under ASTM. Id. at [0025]. While Lee does not describe the temperature of the water drops, Lee strongly implies the standard conditions of testing are in accordance with ASTM standards, which specifically require testing at ambient / room temperature conditions. See, e.g., KeyLink, A Step-by-Step Guide to the ASTM Contact Angle Test Method, Accessed 6-6-2026, https://www.keylinktech.com/blog/contact-angle/guide-to-astm-contact-angle-test/.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the copper foil of modified Kim, such that its copper foil has a room temperature water contact angle in a range of 60° to 70° as in Lee, because Lee teaches a benefit to wettability and adhesion.
Claim 1 is obvious over Kim, in view of Metzger and Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kim.
Lee teaches copper foil’s (or more specifically, a copper substrate layer modified by a protective layer) water contact angle (WCA) “determines wettability,” and further discloses that wettability controls adhesion strength. This optimal adhesion zone is between 62 – 86. This is important, because this indicates a change in wettability directly impacts the durability and stability of the current collector and thereby the electrochemical device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the copper foil of modified Lee, such that the copper foil has a water contact angle reduction rate after heat treatment at 190 °C for one hour in a range of 0% to 25%, because the WCA is a result-effective variable which impacts wettability as a primary result and adhesion / durability as a secondary effect, indicating that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would arrive at the claimed invention through routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 2 is obvious over Kim, in view of Metzger and Lee.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kim.
Kim teaches an organic additive present within the electrolytic solution 11 during plating, and thereby the protective layer 131 during formation. Kim at [p.6-7]. This organic additive may comprise a nitride, indicating Kim teaches “the protective layer includes . . . a nitrogen compound.”
Claim 5 is obvious over Kim, in view of Metzger and Lee.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Metzger and Lee, further in view of Kim II, et. al. (US 20180102546 A1; the Office notes this is the same author as the primary reference Kim, and is shorthanded as Kim II to more easily distinguish between the references).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kim.
Kim teaches a protective layer. Copper generally has a temperature coefficient of resistance of 0.00393 per degree Celsius, indicating for each degree resistance increases at least 0.398% (see, e.g., J.H. Dellinger, The temperature coefficient of resistance of copper, Journal of the Franklin Institute, Volume 170, Issue 3,1910,
Pages 213-216, giving a value range of 0.00398 to 0.00445) indicating that untreated copper would not meet “a surface resistance increase rate after heat treatment at 190 C for one hour in a range of 0% to 5%.” Kim is silent as to the protective layer suppressing resistance increases, such that the overall foil meet “wherein the copper foil has a surface resistance increase rate after heat treatment at 190 °C for one hour in a range of 0% to 5%.”
Kim II teaches an electrolytic copper foil for a secondary battery, having protective layers, wherein “[0049] The first and second protective layers 112a and 112b may include at least one of chromium (Cr), a silane compound, and a nitrogen compound and may be formed to prevent corrosion of the copper layer 111, improve heat resistance of the copper layer 111, and suppress the reduction of a charge and discharge efficiency of the secondary battery by increasing an adhesion strength between the copper layer 111 and the active material layers 120a and 120b.” Further, this thermal resistance is tested at 190 degrees C, and suppresses thermal expansion to below 5% through its inclusion of a silane, chromium, or nitrogen compound. As discussed within the Claim 5 analysis, Kim teaches the presence of such a compound within the protective layer. Further, as noted above by Lee, the heat resistance of the protective layer to wettability impacts adhesion; further, the protective layer impacts surface layer resistance.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the copper foil of modified Kim, such that copper foil has a surface resistance increase rate after heat treatment at 190 °C for one hour in a range of 0% to 5%, because Lee, Kim, and Kim II indicate the heat resistance of the protective layer at 190 degrees bears upon adhesion, wettability, and surface resistance, and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the heat resistance to be a result effective variable that would be obvious to modify as a matter of routine optimization.
Claim 3 is obvious over Kim, in view of Metzger and Lee, further in view of Kim II.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Metzger and Lee, further in view of Kim III, et. al. (CN 108075098 A; the Office notes this is the same author, Kim Seung Min, as the primary reference Kim, and is shorthanded as Kim III to more easily distinguish between the references).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kim.
Modified Kim is silent as to arithmetic surface roughness, Ra.
Kim III teaches an electrolytic copper foil for an electrode, wherein “[p.2] The surface roughness Ra of each of the first surface and the second surface may range from 0.1 μm to 0.55 μm.” This presents an overlapping range with “wherein the copper foil has an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of 0.1 μm to 0.3 μm” and an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Kim III notes its configuration of the electrolytic copper foil avoids “the risk of the electrolytic copper foil wrinkling or folding.” Kim IIII at [p.1-2].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the copper foil of modified Kim, such that its copper foil has an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of 0.1 μm to 0.3 μm, because Kim III teaches a benefit to preventing wrinkling or folding, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 4 is obvious over Kim, in view of Metzger and Lee, further in view of Kim III.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights