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 statement (IDS) submitted on 03-01-2024, 08-27-2024, and 12-10-2025, 03-25-2026 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 § 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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0277705 hereinafter Kim in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0305294 hereinafter Tateishi.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a copper foil (negative electrode collector) for a negative electrode of a high-capacity Li secondary battery (paragraphs 18-19), the copper foil comprising a copper film with protective layers (paragraph 26), and wherein the copper foil has a thickness of 6 µm (paragraph 70).
Kim does not specifically disclose the work hardening exponent n of about 0.1 to 0.25 of the copper foil and a true stress equation as represented in the claim.
However, Tateishi teaches an anode (negative electrode) current collector for a secondary battery, the current collector comprising a copper-tin alloy (paragraphs 28-31, 76, see Example 3), wherein the current collector has a thickness of 10 µm and a breaking elongation of 21.3% (see Claim 1, Embodiment 3B, Figs. 10 and 11). The elongation at break is 21.3% (2.88 mm), since the length of the measurement portion of the sample is about 13.5 mm from Fig. 10, the work hardening index is about 0.16 when the work hardening index is obtained using the stress-displacement curve in the same figure. Examiner submits that this is within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such copper foil (current collector) for the negative electrode before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Tateishi discloses that elongation after fractures of the copper alloy foil according to Examples 1B and 3B greatly exceeded 7.95% while the tensile strength thereof was lower than 500 MPa as shown in FIGS. 10 and 11, and the copper alloy foil of Examples 1B and 3B was able to sufficiently bear roll press when an anode was produced (paragraph 102).
Regarding Claims 2-5, the combination teaches a copper alloy foil having an increased elongation (i.e., greatly exceeds 7.95%) and work hardening index of about 0.16 as described above. MPEP 2112.01 teaches that 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)
Because the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions (i.e., elastic modulus, yield strength, dislocation density) are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding Claims 6-10, the combination teaches an electrolytic copper foil including a drum side and an air side opposite to the drum side (paragraphs 13, 28 of Kim), wherein the average size of grains included in the drum side is expected to be smaller than an average size of grains included in the air side (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claims 11-16, the combination teaches an electrolytic copper foil (negative electrode collector) and the X-ray diffraction analysis on the negative electrode collector is expected to be similar (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claims 17-20, the combination teaches a secondary battery and a method of manufacturing the secondary battery, the battery comprising: an electrode assembly including a negative electrode, a separator, and a positive electrode that are sequentially stacked and wound in one direction; and a battery container (i.e., cylindrical battery case) that accommodates the electrode assembly (paragraphs 80-88 of Kim), wherein the negative electrode comprises the negative electrode collector (electrolytic copper-alloy foil) as described above (see Kim and Tateishi described above).
Conclusion
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