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 statements (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2024, 12/22/2025, and 04/27/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 14, 17-21, 24, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2017/0141403 A1) in view of Sato et al. (WO 2020179183 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Song discloses an electrolytic copper foil ranging in room temperature elongation per unit thickness from 1.3 to 2.0 %/µm (Para. [0025] states that the electrolytic copper foil possesses an elongation percentage of the electrolytic copper foil measured at the room temperature may be 5% to 10%.) When the elongation percentage is divided by the thickness of the copper foil as disclosed in instant claim 21 (Para. [0039] states that a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil may be 6 µm to 12 µm.). Furthermore, dividing the elongation percentage of the electrolytic copper foil that falls within the range of 5% to 10%, as disclosed in para. [0025] of the specification of Song, by a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil that falls within the range of 6 µm to 12 µm, as disclosed in para. [0039] of the specification of Song, gives a variety of ranges encompassed by the range 1.3 to 2.0 %/µm, including
10
%
6
µ
m
= 1.66 %/µm,
9
%
6
µ
m
= 1.5 %/µm,
10
%
7
µ
m
= 1.43 %/µm, and
8
%
6
µ
m
= 1.33 %/µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of a room-temperature elongation per unit thickness from 1.3 to 2.0 %/µm because Song teaches overlapping ranges for a room-temperature elongation per unit thickness of 1.66 %/µm, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Song fails to disclose wherein the electrolytic copper foil has a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) to surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) of 1 or greater.
However, Sato teaches wherein the electrolytic copper foil has a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) to surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) of 1 or greater (Table 2 displays an electrolytic copper foil comprised of a matte surface (comparative example 3) with a contact angle with NMP at 58.7°. Furthermore, a shiny surface (comparative example 2) of the same copper foil has a contact angle with NMP at 54.1°, resulting in a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane to surface wetting angle on S plane of greater than 1.). Applicant defines “M plane” as a matte surface or a deposited surface and “S plane” as a shiny surface (Para. [0027] of applicants filed and published specification US 2025/0253351 A1).
Song and Sato are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of developing electrolytic copper foils for enhanced adhesion between a negative electrode material and a copper foil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic copper foil of Song to include a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane to surface wetting angle on S plane of 1 or greater because Sato teaches a lower contact angle increases wettability of the copper foil surface (paras. [0013-0014]) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (A).
Regarding claim 17, Song, as modified by Sato, discloses wherein the surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) and the surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) are in relationship 0.7 < cos (θM)/cos (θS) < 1 (Sato Table 2 displays an electrolytic copper foil comprised of a matte surface (comparative example 3) with a contact angle with NMP at 58.7°. Furthermore, a shiny surface (comparative example 2) of the same copper foil has a contact angle with NMP at 54.1°. When the aforementioned values are placed into the equation:
cos
(
58.7
)
c
o
s
(
54.1
)
= 0.8859, which fulfills the criteria 0.7 < cos (θM)/cos (θS) < 1.).
Regarding claims 18-20, Song discloses wherein the M plane is smaller in three-dimensional surface roughness than the S plane of instant claim 18, wherein the M plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness of 0.7 – 1.0 µm of instant claim 19, and wherein the S plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness of 1.3 – 2.0 µm of instant claim 20 (Para. [0026] states that the surface roughness of the matte side of the electrolytic copper foil may be 2.0 - 0.5 µm while the surface roughness of the shiny side of the electrolytic copper foil may be 2.0 – 0.6 µm.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of the M plane possessing a smaller three-dimensional surface roughness (Sz) than the S plane wherein the M plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness (Sz) of 0.7 – 1.0 µm and the S plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness of 1.3 – 2.0 µm because Song teaches overlapping ranges for a surface roughness of the matte side of the electrolytic copper foil which may be 2.0 - 0.5 µm while the surface roughness of the shiny side of the electrolytic copper foil may be 2.0 – 0.6 µm, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Song discloses wherein the electrolytic copper foil is 2 -12 µm in thickness (Para. [0039] states that a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil may be 6 µm to 12 µm.).
Regarding claim 24, Song discloses an electrolytic copper foil having a room-temperature tensile strength of 40 kgf/mm2 or greater (Examples 1-4 displayed in Table 3 illustrate each possessing a tensile strength of 59 kgf/mm2 or greater. Additionally, para. [0114] states that the tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil may be 55 kgf/mm2 or greater.).
Song fails to disclose wherein the electrolytic copper foil has a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) to surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) of 1 or greater.
However, Sato teaches wherein the electrolytic copper foil has a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) to surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) of 1 or greater (Table 2 displays an electrolytic copper foil comprised of a matte surface (comparative example 3) with a contact angle with NMP at 58.7°. Furthermore, a shiny surface (comparative example 2) of the same copper foil has a contact angle with NMP at 54.1°, resulting in a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane to surface wetting angle on S plane of greater than 1.).
Song and Sato are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of developing electrolytic copper foils for enhanced adhesion between a negative electrode material and a copper foil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic copper foil of Song to include a ratio of surface wetting angle on M plane to surface wetting angle on S plane of 1 or greater because Sato teaches a lower contact angle increases wettability of the copper foil surface (paras. [0013-0014]) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (A).
Regarding claim 26, Song, as modified by Sato, discloses wherein the surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) is 50° to 60° (Table 2 displays a shiny surface of an electrolytic copper foil with a contact angle with NMP at 54.10°.).
Regarding claim 27, Song, as modified by Sato, discloses wherein the surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) and the surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) are in relationship 0.7 < cos (θM)/cos (θS) < 1 (Sato Table 2 displays an electrolytic copper foil comprised of a matte surface (comparative example 3) with a contact angle with NMP at 58.7°. Furthermore, a shiny surface (comparative example 2) of the same copper foil has a contact angle with NMP at 54.1°. When the aforementioned values are placed into the equation:
cos
(
58.7
)
c
o
s
(
54.1
)
= 0.8859, which fulfills the criteria 0.7 < cos (θM)/cos (θS) < 1.).
Regarding claims 28-30, Song discloses wherein the M plane is smaller in three-dimensional surface roughness than the S plane of instant claim 28, wherein the M plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness of 0.7 – 1.0 µm of instant claim 29, and wherein the S plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness of 1.3 – 2.0 µm of instant claim 30 (Para. [0026] states that the surface roughness of the matte side of the electrolytic copper foil may be 2.0 to 0.5 µm while the surface roughness of the shiny side of the electrolytic copper foil may be 2.0 – 0.6 µm.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of the M plane possessing a smaller three-dimensional surface roughness (Sz) than the S plane wherein the M plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness (Sz) of 0.7 – 1.0 µm and the S plane has a three-dimensional surface roughness of 1.3 – 2.0 µm because Song teaches overlapping ranges for a surface roughness of the matte side of the electrolytic copper foil which may be 2.0 - 0.5 µm while the surface roughness of the shiny side of the electrolytic copper foil may be 2.0 – 0.6 µm, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 31, Song discloses wherein the electrolytic copper foil is 2 -12 µm in thickness (Para. [0039] states that a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil may be 6 µm to 12 µm.).
Claims 15-16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. in view of Sato et al., and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0040241 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Song, as modified by Sato, discloses the electrolytic copper foil as discussed in claims 14 and 24.
Song, as modified by Sato, fails to disclose wherein the surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) is 60° to 70°.
However, Kim teaches wherein the surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) is 60° to 70° (Claim 1 states that a matte side is formed on one surface of the copper foil wherein the copper foil has a water contact angle of 90° or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the matte surface is provided on a surface of the copper foil, the matte surface would possess a water contact angle of 90° or less.).
Song, Sato, and Kim are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same art of developing electrolytic copper foils for enhanced adhesion between a negative electrode material and a copper foil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic copper foil of Song, as modified by Sato, to include wherein the surface wetting angle on M plane (θM) is 60° to 70° because Kim teaches that developing a copper foil with optimized water contact angles provides sufficient adhesive force between a current collector and an active material in a battery (para. [0011]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Song, as modified by Sato and Kim, discloses the electrolytic copper foil as discussed in claim 15.
Song, as modified by Sato, further discloses wherein the surface wetting angle on S plane (θS) is 50° to 60° (Sato Table 2 displays a shiny surface of an electrolytic copper foil with a contact angle with NMP at 54.10°.).
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. in view of Sato et al., and in further view of Fujishima et al. (US 2019/0221795 A1).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Song, as modified by Sato, discloses the electrolytic copper foil as discussed in claims 14 and 24.
Song, as modified by Sato, fails to disclose wherein the M plane has a static friction coefficient of 0.2-0.3 and the S plane has a static friction coefficient of 0.17-0.21.
However, Fujishima teaches wherein the M plane has a static friction coefficient of 0.2-0.3 and the S plane has a static friction coefficient of 0.17-0.21 (Para. [0103] explains that friction coefficients (referred to static friction coefficients) of the surfaces of sliding plates 28 and 29 are preferably 0.20 or less.).
Song, Sato, and Fujishima are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same art of developing battery parts with increased frictional resistance for enhanced battery stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic copper foil of Song, as modified by Sato, to include an M plane with a static friction coefficient of 0.2-0.3 and an S plane with a static friction coefficient of 0.17-0.21 because Fujishima teaches a low friction coefficient allows for reduced load applied to the cell stack at the time of its production, increasing the stability and productivity of said cell stack and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (D).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. in view of Sato et al., and in further view of Jin et al. (US 2022/0228268 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Song, as modified by Sato, discloses the electrolytic copper foil as discussed in claims 14 and 24.
Song, as modified by Sato, fails to disclose wherein the electrolytic copper foil possesses a TOC content of 5-8 ppm.
However, Jin teaches wherein the electrolytic copper foil possesses a TOC content of 5-8 ppm (Para. [0057] states that a content of carbon is in a range of 2 ppm to 20 ppm in a copper layer 110, which comprises both a matte surface and a shiny surface of copper foil 101.).
Song, Sato, and Jin are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same art of developing electrolytic copper foils in which curling, wrinkles, and tears are prevented during their manufacture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic copper foil of Song, as modified by Sato, to include a TOC content of 5-8 ppm because Jin teaches that including a TOC content within the preferred range reduces curling and impurities while increasing tensile strength, elongation, and electrical conductivity of the copper layer (para. [0057]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would know to use as much or as little as necessary to achieve the desired result and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights