DETAILED OFFICIAL 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
Claims 1-7 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2024/0186527 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
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 (see Applicant’s FIG. 6). 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: use of the word "disclosure". In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “Provided is a copper foil...”
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 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 Cai et al. (CN 108270016 B, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Cai”).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses an electrolytic copper foil (a copper foil) [n0003], with an anti-rust coating formed on the surface thereof to prevent corrosion [n0007]. Cai exemplifies a copper layer (a copper film) [n0100] is formed through electroplating, wherein an electrolyte comprising 75 g/L of copper ions, 100 g/L of sulfuric acid, and 2 ppm of chloride ions is utilized [n0099-n0100], under a constant temperature of 55°C [n0100] and a current density of 60 A/dm2 [n0100], thereby, in totality, reading on 99.9 wt% or more of copper, as claimed. Furthermore, the electrolytic copper foil has a thickness of 1-70 μm [n0022, n0027, n0053].
Through calculation (see below), utilizing the L*, a*, and b* before constant temperature and humidity test measurements of Cai Example 3, in Table 2, Cai discloses a color difference before constant temperature and humidity test measurement (color difference (E') before stretching = [(L*1)2+(a*1)2+(b*1)2]1/2), of 82.17 [n0110, Table 2, Example 3], calculated by the following equation:
color difference (E') before stretching = [(L*1)2+(a*1)2+(b*1)2]1/2
color difference (E') before stretching = [(78.2)2+(18.2)2+(17.5)2]1/
color difference (E') before stretching = 82.17
Cai remains silent regarding the electrolytic copper foil has a color difference coefficient in a range of 0.38 to 0.7 based on the Lab color system, wherein the color difference coefficient is calculated by Equation 1 below,
[Equation 1] color difference coefficient=Icolor difference (E") after stretching-color difference (E') before stretching|
wherein the color difference (E') before stretching of Equation 1 is calculated by Equation 2 below,
[Equation 2] color difference (E') before stretching= [(L*1)2+(a*1)2+(b*1)2]1/2
wherein L*1 in Equation 2 refers to L* before stretching,
a*1 in Equation 2 refers to a* before stretching, and
b*1 in Equation 2 refers to b* before stretching, and
the color difference (E") after stretching of Equation 1 is calculated by Equation 3 below, [Equation 3] color difference (E") after stretching= [(L*2)2+(a*2)2+(b*2)2]1/2
wherein L*2 in Equation 3 refers to L* after stretching,
a*2 in Equation 3 refers to a* after stretching, and
b*2 in Equation 3 refers to b* after stretching.
However, the electrolytic copper foil of Cai Example 3 would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in Applicant's specification in terms of comprising:
an electrolytic copper layer formed through electroplating, of which corresponds to the disclosed method of forming a copper film [Applicant’s specification 0037], wherein
the electrolytic copper layer is manufactured using an electrolyte solution comprising 75 g/L of copper ions, 100 g/L of sulfuric acid, and 2 ppm of chloride ions, of which corresponds with the disclosed electrolyte used during electrodeposition [Applicant’s specification 0086-0100], and
the electrolyte is maintained at a temperature of 55°C, of which corresponds to the disclosed electrolyte temperature, 48-60°C [Applicant’s specification, 0086] and is the exact same temperature utilized in Applicant’s Examples 1-5 [Applicant’s specification 0120, Table 1],
with a current density of 60 A/dm2, of which is within, and corresponds with the disclosed current density, 30-130 A/dm2 [Applicant’s specification 0082],
thereby forming a copper layer including 99.9 wt% or more of copper, of which corresponds with the claimed and disclosed 99.9 wt% or more of copper [claim 1, Applicant’s specification 0015, 0036], with
a thickness of 1-70 μm, of which encompasses, and corresponds with the disclosed copper foil thickness, 4-35 μm [Applicant’s specification 0055], wherein
the electrolytic copper layer has a color difference (E') before stretching of 82.17, of which is within, and corresponds with the claimed and disclosed color difference (E') before stretching range of 80-85 [claim 2, Applicant’s specification 049], and
the electrolytic copper layer has an anti-rust coating formed thereon to prevent corrosion, of which corresponds to the disclosed protective layer [Applicant’s specification 0036, 0038, 0111], with
the anti-rust coating comprising chromium, of which corresponds to the disclosed protective layer composition [Applicant’s specification 0113],
Given that the electrolytic copper foil of Cai is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(i), it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the electrolytic copper foil of Cai would have necessarily exhibited a color difference coefficient in a range of 0.38 to 0.7 based on the Lab color system, wherein the color difference coefficient is calculated by Equation 1 as defined by claim 1, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the color difference (E') before stretching defined by claim 2. Through calculation (see ¶17 above), utilizing the before constant temperature and humidity test measurements of Cai Example 3, in Table 2, Cai discloses a color difference (E') before stretching of 82.17 [n0110, Table 2, Example 3], of which is within the claimed range, thereby anticipating the range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Cai is silent regarding the color difference (E") after stretching is in a range of 80 to 85.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the electrolytic copper foil of Cai is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(i), in ¶19 above. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the electrolytic copper foil of Cai would have necessarily exhibited a color difference (E") after stretching is in a range of 80 to 85, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See ¶16-20 above. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Cai remains silent regarding the electrolytic copper foil has a high-temperature elongation of 2% to 20%, wherein the high-temperature elongation is an elongation measured after heat treatment at 190 0C for one hour.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the electrolytic copper foil of Cai is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(i), in ¶19 above. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the electrolytic copper foil of Cai would have necessarily exhibited a high-temperature elongation of 2% to 20%, wherein the high-temperature elongation is an elongation measured after heat treatment at 190 0C for one hour, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See ¶16-20 above. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Cai remains silent regarding the electrolytic copper foil has an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of 0.1 μm to 0.3 μm.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the electrolytic copper foil of Cai is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(i), in ¶19 above. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the electrolytic copper foil of Cai would have necessarily exhibited an arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of 0.1 μm to 0.3 μm, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See ¶16-20 above. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Cai further discloses that the anti-rust coating formed on the surface of the electrolytic copper foil to prevent corrosion comprises a first and a second protective layer (a protective layer formed on the copper film) [n0007, n0018-n0019, n0023, n0062, n0105].
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 6 above, Cai further discloses that the first and second protective layers each include chromium (the protective layer includes a chromium compound) [n0023-n0024, n0031, n0033, n0062].
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 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 Matsushima et al. (US 2013/288122 A1; “Matsushima”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushima discloses an electro-deposited copper foil (a copper foil) [0025, 0031, 0034] with a silane coupling agent layer on top [0036-0037]. The electro-deposited copper foil may be manufactured using an electrolytic solution having a copper concentration of 60 g/L to 90 g/L, a sulfuric acid concentration of 80 g/L to 250 g/L, a chlorine ion concentration of 1 ppm to 3 ppm, and a gelatin-based additive concentration of 0.3 ppm to 5 ppm [0035], with a temperature of the electrolytic solution at 40°C to 60°C and an electrolytic current density of 30 A/dm2 to 120 A/dm2 [0035], thereby, in totality, reading on a copper film including 99.9 wt% or more of copper, as claimed.
The electro-deposited copper foil has an elongation (%) of 0.1 to 3.5 when tested after a heat treatment at 70-450°C, for 0.5-5 hours [0034]. Furthermore, the electro-deposited copper foil has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.1-0.7 μm [0034], and a thickness of 6-35 μm [0034].
Matsushima remains silent regarding the electro-deposited copper foil has a color difference coefficient in a range of 0.38 to 0.7 based on the Lab color system, wherein the color difference coefficient is calculated by Equation 1 as defined by claim 1.
However, the electro-deposited copper foil of Matsushima would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in Applicant's specification in terms of comprising:
a copper foil formed through electro-deposition, of which corresponds to the disclosed electroplating method of forming a copper film [Applicant’s specification 0037],
with a silane coupling agent layer on top, of which corresponds to the disclosed protective layer composition including a silane compound [Applicant’s specification 0113-0114], wherein
the electro-deposited copper foil is manufactured using an electrolyte solution having a copper concentration of 60 g/L to 90 g/L, a sulfuric acid concentration of 80 g/L to 250 g/L, a chlorine ion concentration of 1 ppm to 3 ppm, and a gelatin-based additive concentration of 0.3 ppm to 5 ppm, of which corresponds with the disclosed electrolyte used for electrodeposition [Applicant’s specification 0086-0100], and
the electrolyte is at a temperature of 40°C to 60°C°C, of which overlaps with, and corresponds to the disclosed electrolyte temperature, 48-60°C [Applicant’s specification, 0086], with
an electrolytic current density of 30-120 A/dm2, of which corresponds with the disclosed current density, 30-130 A/dm2 [Applicant’s specification 0082],
thereby forming a copper foil including 99.9 wt% or more of copper, of which corresponds with the claimed and disclosed 99.9 wt% or more of copper [claim 1, Applicant’s specification 0015, 0036],
with a thickness of 6-35 μm, of which is within and corresponds to the disclosed copper foil thickness, 4-35 μm [Applicant’s specification 0055], wherein
the electro-deposited copper foil has an elongation (%) of 0.1 to 3.5, when tested after a heat treatment at 70-450°C, for 0.5-5 hours, of which corresponds to the disclosed high-temperature elongation of 2% to 20% measured after a heat treatment at 190°C for one hour [Applicant’s specification 0057], and
has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.1-0.7 μm, of which corresponds to the disclosed arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of 0.1 μm to 0.3 μm [Applicant’s specification 0062].
Given that the electro-deposited copper foil of Matsushima is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(i), it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the electro-deposited copper foil of Matsushima would have necessarily exhibited a color difference coefficient in a range of 0.38 to 0.7 based on the Lab color system, wherein the color difference coefficient is calculated by Equation 1 as defined by claim 1, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Matsushima is silent regarding the color difference (E') before stretching is in a range of 80 to 85.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the electro-deposited copper foil of Matsushima is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(i), in ¶34 above. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the electro-deposited copper foil of Matsushima would have necessarily exhibited a color difference (E') before stretching is in a range of 80 to 85, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See ¶31-35 above. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Matsushima is silent regarding the color difference (E") after stretching is in a range of 80 to 85.
In view of the totality of the foregoing, the electro-deposited copper foil of Matsushima is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed copper foil in terms of the foregoing elements (a)-(i), in ¶34 above. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the electro-deposited copper foil of Matsushima would have necessarily exhibited a color difference (E") after stretching is in a range of 80 to 85, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See ¶31-35 above. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the protective layer defined by claim 6. The silane coupling agent layer on the surface of the copper foil reads on a protective layer formed on the copper film [0036-0037].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 above reads on the protective layer defined by claim 7. The silane coupling agent layer includes a silane compound (the protective layer includes a silane compound) [0036-0037].
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.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 above.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the cooper foil defined by claim 4. The copper foil has an elongation (%) of 0.1 to 3.5 when tested after a heat treatment at 70-450°C, for 0.5-5 hours [0034], where all three ranges overlap/encompass with the claimed three ranges/values, a high-temperature elongation of 2% to 20% measured after heat treatment at 190 0C for one hour, thereby rendering all three ranges/values obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the cooper foil defined by claim 5. The copper foil has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.1-0.7 μm [0034], of which overlaps with the claimed range, 0.1 μm to 0.3 μm, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Ryoichi et al., JP H11158652 A – teaches performing rust-preventing treatment of the surface of a copper foil by the use of an alkaline chromate bath [English translated copy provided herewith, 0005-0006, 0009, 0011-0016].
Kenichi et al., JP 2003223899 A – teaches that if the average surface roughness of a copper foil is less than 0.15 μm, heat treatment will cause the negative electrode mixture layer to adhere strongly to the exposed copper foil portion at the contact points, leading to peeling of the intermittent coating start point of the negative electrode mixture or a decrease in adhesion, which is undesirable [0031-0032]. Conversely, if the average surface roughness exceeds 0.40 μm, sufficient adhesion between the negative electrode mixture layer and the current collector can be ensured. However, roughening the surface of the thin, weak copper foil beyond 0.40 μm is difficult for mass production, and it is undesirable because it causes the surface of the negative electrode mixture layer to become wavy and crack [0032].
Ikuya, JP H1036992 A – is directed towards an electrolytic copper foil [0001-0002], and teaches that concentration of chlorine impurities incorporated into the electrolytic copper foil affects the high elongation measurement at 180°C [English translation copy provided herewith, 0004, 0010].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights