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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 19, 2024, December 5, 2025, and April 22, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 19 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 19 recites the limitation "the M plane and the S plane" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, there are no units for hardness in the claims. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret claim 19 as ‘the electrolytic copper foil of claim 10, wherein any plane has a Vickers hardness of 100 or greater.’
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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141403 (IDS dated 12/05/2025), hereinafter Song.
Regarding claims 10-13, Song’s example 3 teaches an electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 60.2 kgf/mm2 (Table 3, Example 3) (instant claim 10). The electrolytic copper foil has a thickness of 12µm [0089] (instant claims 11 and 13). The electrolytic copper foil has an elongation per unit thickness of 1.5%/µm after treatment at 200C for one hour ([0112] and Table 3 Example 3: elongation percentage after high temperature heat treatment is 18.1% divided by thickness of 12µm is 1.5%/µm) (instant claim 12).
However, Song’s Example 3 fails to teach a room-temperature elongation per unit thickness from 1.3 to 2.0%/µm (instant claim 10).
Song teaches an elongation percentage of the electrolytic copper foil at room temperature being 2.5% or more [0025]. When the elongation percentage is divided by the thickness of the copper foil, an overlap in ranges is taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an electrolytic copper foil with a room temperature elongation of 2.5% or more in order for the lithium battery to effectively accept a volume change of an active material [0025].
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141403 (IDS dated 12/05/2025), hereinafter Song, as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claims 14-15, Song teaches, as mentioned above, an electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 60.2 kgf/mm2 (Table 3, Example 3), a thickness of 12µm [0089] (instant claim 15), a room temperature elongation per unit thickness of 1.3 to 2.0%/µm [0025], and an elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment at 200C of 1.05 to 1.25 (Table 3).
However, Song fails to explicitly teach a ratio of elongation after heating to elongation at room temperature of 1.05 to 1.25 (instant claim 14).
Song teaches that the elongation percentage increases after heat treatment ([0123] and [0127]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this means the ratio of elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment to elongation per unit thickness at room temperature is more than 1. This represents an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained a ratio of elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment to elongation per unit thickness at room temperature of more than 1 in order for the electrolytic copper foil to effectively accept a volume change of the electrode at a high temperature [0123] and in order improve adhesion between the active material layer and the current collector [0127].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141403 (IDS dated 12/05/2025), hereinafter Song, as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 16, Song teaches, as mentioned above, an electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 60.2 kgf/mm2 (Table 3, Example 3), a room temperature elongation per unit thickness of 1.3 to 2.0%/µm [0025], and an elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment at 200C of 1.05 to 1.25 (Table 3).
However, Song fails to teach the electrolytic copper foil having a thickness of 4-10µm.
Song teaches that the thickness of the electrolytic copper foil may be 35 µm or less, for example, 6 µm to 12 µm [0039]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an electrolytic copper foil thickness within the claimed range in order to improve a battery characteristic within the thickness of the electrolytic copper foil [0039].
Claims 17 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141403 (IDS dated 12/05/2025), hereinafter Song, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0316266, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Song teaches, as mentioned above, an electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 60.2 kgf/mm2 (Table 3, Example 3), a room temperature elongation per unit thickness of 1.3 to 2.0%/µm [0025], and an elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment at 200C of 1.05 to 1.25 (Table 3).
However, Song fails to teach the electrolytic copper foil withstanding 240 or more repeated bending cycles as measured by an MIT bending test.
Lee teaches an electrolytic copper foil for a secondary battery (Abstract) that has a tensile strength of 30 to 51 kgf/mm2 [0049] and a thickness of 4µm to 10µm [0052]. In the electrolytic copper foil for the secondary battery, the bending times thereof in the MIT bending test are 110 times of greater [0035]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ensured the electrolytic copper foil of Song had MIT bending test of 110 times of greater in order to effectively absorb large stresses due to the large volume change of the active material during charging and discharging of the battery. This may prevent the degradation of the charging and discharging cycle characteristics or the destruction of the current collector [0035].
Regarding claim 20, Song teaches, as mentioned above, an electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 60.2 kgf/mm2 (Table 3, Example 3), a room temperature elongation per unit thickness of 1.3 to 2.0%/µm [0025], and an elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment at 200C of 1.05 to 1.25 (Table 3).
However, Song fails to teach the electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 40-45 kgf/mm2.
Lee teaches an electrolytic copper foil for a secondary battery (Abstract) that has a tensile strength of 30 to 51 kgf/mm2 [0049] and a thickness of 4µm to 10µm [0052]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, when the tensile strength is lower than 30 kgf/mm2, the foil may be deformed or fractured in the press production process after coating the electrode active material [0049]. Therefore, tensile strength at room temperature is considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the room temperature tensile strength of Song in order to withstand stress and deterioration, as taught by Lee [0049]. In optimizing this tensile strength at room temperature, one would arrive at the claimed relationship, barring evidence to criticality of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141403 (IDS dated 12/05/2025), hereinafter Song, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0355993, hereinafter Lee’.
Regarding claim 18, Song teaches, as mentioned above, an electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 60.2 kgf/mm2 (Table 3, Example 3), a room temperature elongation per unit thickness of 1.3 to 2.0%/µm [0025], and an elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment at 200C of 1.05 to 1.25 (Table 3).
However, Song fails to teach the electrolytic copper foil having a total organic carbon (TOC) content of 5-8ppm.
Lee’ teaches an electrolytic copper foil composed of a single layer or a stack of two or more layers (Abstract) wherein the TOC is included in the copper electrolytic solution and serves to reduce the internal grain size of the electrolytic copper foil [0062]. The TOC generates impurities in the grain boundaries, thereby suppressing the abnormal growth of crystal grains and increasing the tensile strength. As the content of TOC in the electrolytic copper foil increases, the elongation is degraded and cracks are generated [0063]. Therefore, the TOC content in the electrolytic copper foil is considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the TOC content in the electrolytic copper foil of Song in order to maintain elongation and tensile strength, as taught by Lee’ [0063]. In optimizing this TOC content, one would arrive at the claimed relationship, barring evidence to criticality of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141403 (IDS dated 12/05/2025), hereinafter Song, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0323556, hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 19, Song teaches, as mentioned above, an electrolytic copper foil having a room temperature tensile strength of 60.2 kgf/mm2 (Table 3, Example 3), a room temperature elongation per unit thickness of 1.3 to 2.0%/µm [0025], and an elongation per unit thickness after heat treatment at 200C of 1.05 to 1.25 (Table 3).
However, Song fails to teach any surface of the electrolytic copper foil having a Vickers hardness of 100 or greater.
Wu teaches an electrolytic copper foil having a normal temperature tensile strength of 50 kg/mm2 or greater and a Vickers hardness of 180 of greater [0030-0031]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrolytic copper foil of Song with a Vickers hardness of 180 or greater in order to reduce the probability of breakage of the electrode plate in the secondary battery [0159].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights