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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 06/17/2026:
Claims 15-16, 18-28, 30, and 32-35 are pending in the current application. Claims 15, 18-19, 22, and 30 have been amended. Claims 22-28 stand withdrawn. Claims 32-35 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pages 7-8, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 30.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, filed 06/17/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges “In the Office Action, the Examiner cites Shirane modified by Sakai as teaching a polymer formed by mixing at least VDF and CTFE in an autoclave for over an hour, then adding an aqueous solution of mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate over 10 hours. The Examiner cites the aqueous solution of mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate of Sakai as the instantly claimed monomer (MA) and Hardie for teaching benefits related to choosing a continuous process. Barclay is cited for providing additional motivation to continuously feed Sakai's monomer” (Remarks Pages 8-9).
The Examiner wishes to note that, while they pointed to Example 1 of Sakai on Pages 10-11 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 03/17/2026, the Examiner pointed to this example to show that Sakai desires their monomer to be added over a certain period of time rather than all at once. The Examiner did not point to this example to limit the interpretation of Sakai such that only monomer of Sakai that is being drawn to the instantly claimed monomer (MA) is the mono(acryloyloxypropyl) succinate. Sakai further teaches the monomer can include “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (which are considered hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers) (see P18, 22, 27, 74 and 78-79).
Applicant alleges “Initially, Applicant respectfully asserts that it would not have been obvious to have utilized the teachings of Sakai and substituted the binder of Shirane with the binder in Sakai. While the Examiner alleges the contrary on the basis that doing so would prevent expanding (thus suppress a decrease in battery performance), and provides sufficient adhesiveness, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Specifically, the copolymer components in Sakai, and amounts thereof, are indicative of a copolymer that is used in a binder composition, where the binder composition can be prevented from expanding. See Sakai, para. [0029]. However, Shirane's teachings are directed to cylindrical batteries that include wound electrode groups. The electrode group includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode and binders for each of the preceding, yet the entire electrode group and the function of the battery rely on deformations - expansions of the columnar bodies that form the negative electrode. See Shirane paras. [0040] and [0046]. More specifically, and as described in paras. [0060]-[0061] and [0068], the teachings of Shirane rely on a tilting angle of the columnar bodies, the angles of which are responsive to the insertion and extraction of lithium ions. During insertion, the columnar bodies expand and increase the tilting angle to form an upright manner and return to their initial tilt angle during extraction by decreasing the titling angles. See FIG. 3A. Thus, the electrode group of Shirane, and the binders for the positive and negative electrodes included therein, require flexibility to accommodate the deformations and expanding stresses (horizontal component and reaction forces) associated with charging and discharging of the battery.
However, substituting the binder of Shirane with the binder of Sakai's would not provide Shirane's electrode group with the needed flexibility to accommodate the deformations. Rather, Sakai's binder copolymer would prevent the expansion of the electrode in Shirane. The reference discloses electrodes that suppress gelation. See Sakai abstract and para. [0009]. It is mentioned that the selected proportion of the constituent units of CTFE in the binder allows the composition to be prevented from expanding, but no details or experimental data about this property are then included in the text. Accordingly, while Sakai prevents battery performance degradation by preventing expansion and gelation of electrode mixtures, Shirane opts to rely on deformations/expansion of the electrode group, which includes the electrodes and binders thereof, to enhance the battery's performance. See Shirane para. [0013]. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to include Sakai's monomer amounts of the CTFE and AA for the VDF-CTFE-AA copolymer binder described in Shirane, as the combination of Shirane and Sakai suggest that Sakai's binder would prohibit the deformations that Shirane requires. Thus, for at least this reason, Applicant believes the combination of Shirane in view of Sakai, Hardie and Barclay does not read on the pending claims or render the pending claims obvious.
Applicant further believes that in view of the above, the substitution of Sakai's copolymer for Shirane's binder would change the principle of operation and/or render Shirane's binder within the electrode group unsuitable for its intended purpose. Specifically, Shirane teaches providing a wound battery device where the electrode group deforms in a manner to tighten the wound shape, and the electrode group regains its original shape only during a discharging process. As a result, the invention of Shirane not only improves a battery capacity by the effect of the negative electrode active material but also increases the battery capacity further by enabling expansion of an overall area of the electrode. See Shirane para. [0013]. However, as noted above, the binder of Sakai would not allow for the expanding stresses mentioned in Shirane's electrodes. Accordingly, Applicant believes the proposed modification would render Shirane's electrodes unsuitable for its intended purpose. Applicant reminds the Examiner that if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In view of the teachings of at least Sakai and Shirane, Applicant believes that the combined teachings do not suggest or provide motivation to make the coated separator as claimed” (Remarks Pages 10-12).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant states that Sakai’s copolymer components and amounts thereof are indicative of a copolymer used in a binder composition wherein the binder composition can be prevented from expanding. Applicant further states that Shirane teaches are directed to cylindrical batteries that include wound electrode groups, and that these groups rely on deformation.
However, the Examiner notes that electrode of Sakai, including the binder of Sakai, can be utilized within a cylindrical battery. Sakai states in P73 “In FIG. 2, the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery 100 is illustrated as a cylindrical battery”.
Applicant further states that the entire electrode group and the function of the battery of Shirane rely on deformations noted to be the expansions of columnar bodies that form the negative electrode. Applicant states that the columnar bodies expand and increase their tilting angle during insertion of lithium ions and return to their initial form during extraction of lithium ions. Applicant states that the binders of the positive and negative electrodes included therein require the flexibility to accommodate the deformations and expanding stresses associated with this charging and discharging of the battery. Applicant states substituting the binder of Shirane with the binder of Sakai would not allow Shirane’s electrode group their needed flexibility and would prevent the expansion of the electrode in Shirane.
However, the Examiner notes that the columnar bodies of Shirane are only directed to the negative electrode of Shirane.
The positive electrode of Shirane includes a positive electrode mixture layer having a positive electrode active material, an electrical conductive agent, and binder (P42-43). Shirane teaches their binder used in the positive electrode mixture layer can include a copolymer made of two or more materials including vinylidene fluoride, chloro-trifluoro ethylene, and acrylic acid (P44).
In the Non-Final Rejection dated 03/17/2026, Pages 8-9 set forth that the positive electrode binder is the binder being drawn to the instantly claimed binder, and Page 10 sets forth that the binder of Shirane (which would be the positive electrode binder) is the binder that is being substituted with the binder of Sakai.
Therefore, the binder of Sakai is being utilized as the positive electrode binder of Shirane and would not prevent Shirane’s deformation/expansion of their negative electrode’s columnar bodies.
Further, given the binder of Sakai is not used within the negative electrode, the columnar bodies expansion and increase of their tilting angle during insertion of lithium ions and return to their initial form during extraction of lithium ions would still occur. Since Shirane’s negative electrode can still deform as desired, therefore, still provide the desired improvements from the deformations, the substitution of Sakai’s copolymer for Shirane’s positive electrode binder would not change the principle of operation and/or render Shirane’s binder within the electrode group unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Applicant alleges “Additionally, while Barclay was cited for teaching that the extended addition or continuous feed of one or more polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity, e.g. the polymer will have more uniform distribution of repeat units, the reference teaches that the uniform distribution is associated with providing a polymer with improved lithographic properties as the reference is directed to the field of photoresist compositions. See Barclay para. [0014]. Thus, the reference does not teach, suggest or otherwise motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a monomer with uniform distribution throughout the polymer to improve the adhesion of the formed polymer, nor does the reference teach anything about batteries or electrodes and compositions thereof. Thus, the combination of Shirane, Sakai, Hardie and Barclay does not teach or suggest the instant claims, as amended” (Remarks Pages 12-13).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
While Barclay is drawn to the field of photoresist compositions, rather than binder compositions for an electrode, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Sakai already teaches copolymerization of VF, VTFE, and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA). Barclay’s teaching that continuous feeding of one or more polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity relative to a polymer made by another method, such as a batch synthesis process, would lead one of ordinary skill in the art (alongside the already noted Hardie which teaches continuous processes having a more efficient use of energy and easier quality maintenance) to utilize a continuous process given the benefits Barclay recites.
If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize a continuous feeding of a polymerization reagent to improve polymer homogeneity in a process directed to a photoresist composition), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize a continuous feeding of a polymerization reagent to improve polymer homogeneity in a process directed to a binder composition), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
The rejections below have been updated to reflect the amendments to claims 15 and 30, cancellation of claim 17, and to address newly added claims 32-35.
Claim Objections
Claims 30, 32, and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 does not make grammatical sense. Claim 30 states “…wherein the polymer (F) improves adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode when compared to a polymer comprising monomer (MA) that is not uniformly distributed is used”. The phrase “is used” appears to be erroneous. The Examiner suggests language similar to “…wherein the polymer (F) improves adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode when compared to using a polymer comprising monomer (MA) that is not uniformly distributed”.
Claim 32 states “…wherein polymer (F) possesses at least 38% less weight loss at 200°C compared to a VDF copolymer comprising from 0.2-0.9 mol% AA and that does not comprise CTFE monomer”. The acronyms “VDF”, “AA”, and “CTFE” are not used in any previous claims of which claim 32 is dependent from, and, therefore, need to be defined in claim 32.
Claim 35 states “…wherein the continuous feeding includes feeding incremental additions of the amount of the aqueous solution of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to until copolymerization has concluded”. The word “to” appears erroneous.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is 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.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites the limitation "a polymer comprising monomer (MA)".
The “monomer (MA)” is claimed to be in a polymer that is separate from polymer (F). It is unclear if this monomer (MA) is to be the same type of monomer as the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) of claim 15, given it is noted with “(MA)” or if it is another type of monomer (MA) separate from the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) given it is utilized in a separate polymer and only noted as “monomer” rather than a “hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer”.
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.
Claims 15-16, 18-21, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirane et al (US 20080193840 A1) in view of Sakai et al (WO2018092675A1, using the provided machine English translation) in view of Hardie (Hardie’s Knowledge Base: Learn About Polymer Manufacturing Processes) and Barclay et al (US 20030027075 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shirane discloses a coated separator for electrochemical devices comprising a substrate layer partially coated with a binder (positive electrode 1 sits on a surface of separator 3 in Fig. 1, P40; the positive electrode 1 includes a binder, P44; the separator can be a micro-porous film, P46; since the positive electrode including the binder ‘covers’ or is a ‘layer upon’ the separator, the binder in the positive electrode can be considered partially coating the micro-porous film of the separator).
Shirane discloses the binder includes a vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride, chlorotrifluoroethylene, and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) (“Materials used as the binder can be any selected from…a copolymer may be used such as one made of two or more materials selected from the group consisting of … vinylidene fluoride, chloro-trifluoro ethylene … acrylic acid”, P44).
However, Shirane does not disclosure wherein the vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) is obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride and chlorotrifluoroethylene in a reactor and then continuously feeding an aqueous solution of at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to the reactor during copolymerization, wherein the wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 2 % by moles, and wherein the continuous feeding of the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) provides monomer (MA) uniformly distributed in the polymer (F).
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakai teaches a binder for an electrode including a vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride and chlorotrifluoroethylene in a reactor (the vinylidene fluoride copolymer includes vinylidene fluoride (VF), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), and a third monomer chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (which are considered hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers), P18, 22, 27, 74 and 79; in Example 1, VF and CTFE are mixed in an autoclave for over 1 hour, P91), and then feeding an aqueous solution of at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to the reactor during copolymerization (in Example 1, an aqueous solution of mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate was added over 10 hours, P91), wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles (0.5 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less, P29) and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 2 % by moles (0.2 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less, P29; see also P63).
Sakai teaches “by ensuring that the proportion of the CTFE structural unit is within the abovementioned range, in a binder composition containing this copolymer, the binder composition can be prevented from expanding, and a decrease in battery performance can be suppressed” (P29). Sakai teaches their copolymer provides sufficient adhesiveness (P15, 70, 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Sakai and substituted the binder of Shirane with the binder of Sakai made by the method of Sakai, given Sakai teaches their binder composition is preventing from expanding (thus suppressing a decrease in battery performance), provides sufficient adhesiveness, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
While in Example 1 of Sakai the mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate is added over 10 hours, there is nothing stating where this is a continuous addition or a batch addition of the mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate. Therefore, modified Shirane does not disclose the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is continuously fed to the reactor during copolymerization.
Hardie teaches polymer manufacturing processes can be divided into continuous processes and batch processes (Page 2). Hardie teaches in continuous processes there is a more efficient use of energy and it is easier to maintain a consistent quality (Page 2).
Barclay teaches “ We have surprisingly found that such an extended addition or continuous feed of one or more polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity, e.g. the polymer will have more uniform distribution of repeat units throughout individual polymer chains and across the molecular weight distribution of the polymer relative to a comparable polymer made by other methods, e.g. a batch synthesis process” (P13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hardie and Barclay and chosen to continuously feed the aqueous solution of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) over the 10 hours after the VDF-CTFE were mixed in the reactor, given Hardie teaches continuous processing provides a more efficient use of energy and makes it easier to maintain a consistent quality, and Barclay teaches a continuous feed of polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity over a comparable polymer made by a method such as a batch process.
Further, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) complies with formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
108
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: R1, R2 and R3, equal to or different from each other, are independently selected from a hydrogen atom and a C1-C3 hydrocarbon group, and ROH is a hydrogen atom or a C1-C5 hydrocarbon moiety comprising at least one hydroxyl group and/or at least a carboxylic group (given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA)).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the continuous feeding of the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) provides monomer (MA) uniformly distributed in the polymer (F)”:
Modified Shirane comprises a coated separator for electrochemical devices comprising a substrate layer at least partially coated with a vinylidene fluoride copolymer obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride (VDF), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate), wherein the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate) is continuously fed to the reactor during copolymerization. Therefore, since the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer of modified Shirane is fed to the reactor continuously during copolymerization of the copolymer just as is claimed, it can be believed that the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer would be uniformly distributed in the polymer of modified Shirane also.
Further, as seen by the teaching of Barclay, a continuous feed of polymerization reagents can provide improved polymer homogeneity, therefore, it can further be stated that the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer of modified Shirane would be uniformly distributed in the copolymer of modified Shirane.
Regarding claim 16, Shirane discloses wherein the substrate layer comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutyleneterephthalate, polyester, polyacetal, polyamide, polycarbonate, polyimide, polyetheretherketone, polyethersulfone, polyphenyleneoxide, polyphenylenesulfide, polyethylenenaphthalene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethyleneoxide, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene, polypropylene, and a mixture thereof (“Separator 3 may consist of … micro-porous film made of polyethylene, polypropylene … polyphenylene sulfide, polyimide, and the like”, P53).
Regarding claim 18, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) complies with formula (II):
PNG
media_image2.png
111
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein: R1 and R2, equal to or different from each other, are independently selected from a hydrogen atom and a C1-C3 hydrocarbon group, R3 is hydrogen, and ROH is a hydrogen atom or a C1-C5 hydrocarbon moiety comprising at least one hydroxyl group and/or at least a carboxylic group (given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA); see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 19, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is selected from the group consisting of:
- hydroxyethylacrylate of formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
98
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate of either of formulae:
PNG
media_image4.png
143
387
media_image4.png
Greyscale
- acrylic acid of formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
103
134
media_image5.png
Greyscale
- and mixtures thereof
(given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA); see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 20, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is acrylic acid (given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA); see the rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 21, Sakai discloses wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less (P29) and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.2 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less (P29; see also P63).
Therefore, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein polymer (F) comprises recurring units derived from chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles and recurring units derived from the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 % by moles, given modified Shirane includes CTFE in an amount lying within the claimed range and an amount of the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in a range overlapping with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “wherein the polymer (F) improves adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode at least 20% when compared to a polymer comprising monomer (MA) that is not uniformly distributed is used”.
Given the polymer (F) of modified Shirane is obtained by the same copolymerization method as claimed, the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer of modified Shirane is fed to the reactor continuously during copolymerization of the copolymer just as is claimed in claim 15, Sakai’s binder provides sufficient adhesiveness, and the positive electrode including the binder of modified Shirane sits upon, therefore, covers/partially coats the separator of Shirane, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe that the polymer (F) would inherently improve adhesion between the coated separator and at least one electrode at least 20% when compared to a polymer comprising monomer (MA) that is not uniformly distributed is used.
Further, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites “wherein polymer (F) possesses at least 38% less weight loss at 200°C compared to a VDF copolymer comprising from 0.2-0.9 mol% AA and that does not comprise CTFE monomer”.
Given the polymer (F) of modified Shirane is obtained by the same copolymerization method as claimed and includes the claimed materials of claim 15, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily believe that the polymer (F) possesses at least 38% less weight loss at 200°C compared to a VDF copolymer comprising from 0.2-0.9 mol% AA and that does not comprise CTFE monomer.
Further, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirane et al (US 20080193840 A1) in view of Sakai et al (WO2018092675A1, using the provided machine English translation) in view of Hardie (Hardie’s Knowledge Base: Learn About Polymer Manufacturing Processes) and Barclay et al (US 20030027075 A1) as applied to claim 15, further in view of Abusleme et al (US 20100133482 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Shirane discloses two or more binder materials selected from the binders materials they list can be mixed together as the binder of the positive electrode mixture layer (P44). Shirane discloses binder materials can include copolymers of made of two or more materials selected from the group of vinylidene fluoride, chloro-trifluoro ethylene, acrylic acid, and more (P44).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the polymer (F) of modified Shirane could be utilized alongside another binder comprising a copolymer made from vinylidene fluoride and acrylic acid.
In a similar field of endeavor, Abusleme teaches a linear semi-crystalline copolymer [polymer (A)] comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) monomer and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) wherein said polymer (A) comprises from 0.05 to 10% by moles of recurring units derived from said hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) (P14). Abusleme teaches the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) can be acrylic acid (P27).
Abusleme teaches that they have found that the substantially random distribution of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) within the polyvinylidene fluoride backbone of the polymer (A) advantageously maximizes the effects of the modifying monomer (MA) on both adhesiveness and/or hydrophilic behavior of the resulting copolymer, even at low levels of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in the composition, without impairing the other outstanding properties of the vinylidene fluoride polymers, e.g. thermal stability and mechanical properties (P20). Abusleme teaches their linear semi-crystalline copolymer [polymer (A)] being used as a binder in Li-battery electrodes (P19, 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Abusleme and provided a second binder material to the positive electrode of modified Shirane, wherein the binder material is the linear semi-crystalline copolymer [polymer (A)] of Abusleme, given Shirane teaches multiple binders may be used in their positive electrode mixture layer, Abusleme teaches the linear semi-crystalline copolymer [polymer (A)] being used as a binder for a lithium battery electrode, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
From this modification, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the polymer (F) adheres the coated separator to a binder of at least one electrode (the polymer (F) including in the positive electrode mixture layer of modified Shirane would adhere the positive electrode to the coated separator, given it is the polymer of Sakai which has known adhesiveness when attaching the electrode structure to another structure (see Sakai P15, 46, 70, 120); given the polymer (F) and polymer (A) are both provided in the positive electrode mixture layer of modified Shirane, they both would also adhere to each other; therefore, the coated separator is adhered to polymer (A) in the positive electrode as it is adhered to polymer (F) which is adhered to polymer (A) by way of it being in the positive electrode with polymer (A)),
wherein the binder comprises a vinylidene fluoride copolymer [polymer (A)] comprising: recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride, recurring units derived from acrylic acid in an amount of from 0.05 to 10% by moles, and optionally, recurring units derived from at least one perhalogenated monomer (FM) in an amount of from 0.5% to 5.0% by moles with respect to a total amount of moles of recurring units in said polymer (A) (given the binder comprises a linear semi-crystalline copolymer [polymer (A)] comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) monomer and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) wherein said polymer (A) comprises from 0.05 to 10% by moles of recurring units derived from said hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is acrylic acid as taught by Abusleme).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirane et al (US 20080193840 A1) in view of Sakai et al (WO2018092675A1, using the provided machine English translation) in view of Hardie (Hardie’s Knowledge Base: Learn About Polymer Manufacturing Processes) and Barclay et al (US 20030027075 A1) as applied to claim 15, further in view of Carlson et al (US 20170222206 A1) in view of Kondo et al (JP2010129430A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 34, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the coated separator comprises the substrate layer and a coating composition comprising the polymer (F) (given the separator includes a micro-porous film, P46 of Shirane, and the “coating composition” can be drawn to the positive electrode that sits on a surface of the separator and includes the polymer (F); see the rejection of claim 15 above).
Shirane teaches their positive electrode is formed by mixing an active material, a conducting agent, a solvent, and a binder together into a paste, lying this paste on a positive electrode current collector, then drying this mixture (P113). Shirane then teaches the dried positive electrode is wound with a separator and a negative electrode (P114).
Therefore, when the positive electrode of Shirane is wound with the separator, which forms the coating composition on the substrate layer of the separator of Shirane, there is no solvent left in the coating composition.
In a similar field of endeavor, Carlson teaches an electrode coating layer can be coated on a full surface of a separator layer (P34). Carlson teaches cathode coating layers typically include a solvent, an active material, a conductive material, and an organic polymer (P34). Carlson teaches both the cathode and anode layers can be coated in a separator/electrode assembly to form a dry separator/electrode cell (P35). Carlson teaches the current collector can then be coated directly on the electrode layer (P38).
Carlson teaches this method takes advantage of the nanoporous structure of the separator layer to coat the other layers of the battery in a desired thickness and configuration directly on the porous separator and allows for thinner layers in a lithium battery to be formed (P10-11).
While Carlson is mainly directed to using their coating method for an anode electrode, Carlson does note that an “electrode coating layer” can be coated on a separator layer and that both the cathode and anode layers can be coated in a separator/electrode assembly to form a dry separator/electrode cell. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cathode/positive electrode layer could also be coated onto a separator such as described by Carlson. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Carlson and choose to form the positive electrode on the separator of modified Shirane by coating the positive electrode mixture layer of modified Shirane on the separator’s substrate then coating the current collector layer on the positive electrode mixture layer, given Carlson teaches this as a known technique to form an electrode/separator assembly and Carlson teaches this method allows layers of a battery to be coated in a desired thickness and configuration directly on the porous separator and allows for thinner layers in a lithium battery to be formed.
Given the positive electrode mixture layer of modified Shirane including the active material, the conducting agent, the solvent, and the binder is coated on the separator’s substrate, modified Shirane would meet the limitation wherein the coated separator comprises the substrate layer (the micro-porous film) and a coating composition comprising the polymer (F) and a solvent (the positive electrode layer).
Further, Shirane teaches their positive electrode active material can be selected to be a lithium phosphate including iron or manganese (P42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the positive electrode active material in the coating composition (positive electrode layer) of modified Shirane to be a lithium phosphate including iron or manganese, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
However, modified Shirane does not meet the limitation wherein the coating composition (positive electrode layer) includes at least one non-electroactive inorganic filler material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kondo teaches when an appropriate amount of zeolite is included in a positive electrode of a non-aqueous lithium-ion secondary battery in which a lithium compound containing Fe or Mn as a constituent element is used as the positive electrode active material, capacity degradation when used at high temperatures is suppressed (P5).
Kondo teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery can include a positive electrode active material of lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese phosphate (P9). Kondo teaches a positive electrode can contain 0.5 to 5 wt% of zeolite relative to the positive electrode active material in order to balance adequately trapping eluted Fe or Mn ions while providing a desired initial discharge capacity (P6, 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kondo and provided at least one non-electroactive inorganic filler material, such as zeolite in an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt%, to the coating composition (positive electrode layer) of modified Shirane, given modified Shirane’s coating composition (positive electrode layer) includes a lithium phosphate having iron or manganese, and Kondo teaches when an appropriate amount of zeolite is included in a positive electrode of a non-aqueous lithium-ion secondary battery in which a lithium compound containing Fe or Mn as a constituent element is used as the positive electrode active material, capacity degradation when used at high temperatures is suppressed.
Claims 15 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirane et al (US 20080193840 A1) in view of Sakai et al (WO2018092675A1, using the provided machine English translation) in view of Ubrich et al (The use of calorimetry for on-line optimisation of isothermal semi-batch reactors).
Regarding claims 15 and 35, Shirane discloses a coated separator for electrochemical devices comprising a substrate layer partially coated with a binder (positive electrode 1 sits on a surface of separator 3 in Fig. 1, P40; the positive electrode 1 includes a binder, P44; the separator can be a micro-porous film, P46; since the positive electrode including the binder ‘covers’ or is a ‘layer upon’ the separator, the binder in the positive electrode can be considered partially coating the micro-porous film of the separator).
Shirane discloses the binder includes a vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride, chlorotrifluoroethylene, and at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) (“Materials used as the binder can be any selected from…a copolymer may be used such as one made of two or more materials selected from the group consisting of … vinylidene fluoride, chloro-trifluoro ethylene … acrylic acid”, P44).
However, Shirane does not disclosure wherein the vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) is obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride and chlorotrifluoroethylene in a reactor and then continuously feeding an aqueous solution of at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to the reactor during copolymerization, wherein the wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 2 % by moles, and wherein the continuous feeding of the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) provides monomer (MA) uniformly distributed in the polymer (F).
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakai teaches a binder for an electrode including a vinylidene fluoride copolymer (polymer (F)) obtained by copolymerizing vinylidene fluoride and chlorotrifluoroethylene in a reactor (the vinylidene fluoride copolymer includes vinylidene fluoride (VF), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), and a third monomer chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (which are considered hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomers), P18, 22, 27, 74 and 79; in Example 1, VF and CTFE are mixed in an autoclave for over 1 hour, P91), and then feeding an aqueous solution of at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to the reactor during copolymerization (in Example 1, an aqueous solution of mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate was added over 10 hours, P91), wherein polymer (F) comprises chlorotrifluoroethylene in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 10% by moles (0.5 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less, P29) and the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 2 % by moles (0.2 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less, P29; see also P63).
Sakai teaches “by ensuring that the proportion of the CTFE structural unit is within the abovementioned range, in a binder composition containing this copolymer, the binder composition can be prevented from expanding, and a decrease in battery performance can be suppressed” (P29). Sakai teaches their copolymer provides sufficient adhesiveness (P15, 70, 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Sakai and substituted the binder of Shirane with the binder of Sakai made by the method of Sakai, given Sakai teaches their binder composition is preventing from expanding (thus suppressing a decrease in battery performance), provides sufficient adhesiveness, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
While in Example 1 of Sakai the mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate is added over 10 hours, there is nothing stating where this is a continuous addition or a batch addition of the mono (acryloyloxypropyl) succinate. Therefore, modified Shirane does not disclose the at least one hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) is continuously fed to the reactor during copolymerization, wherein the continuous feeding includes feeding incremental additions of the amount of the aqueous solution of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) to until copolymerization has concluded (as required by claim 35).
Ubrich teaches an important operational objective in the chemical industry is to increase production or selectivity while guaranteeing safe processes (Page 5147, Left Column). Ubrich teaches since reactions are often exothermic, they may present a risk in the case of loss of control of the reactor; in order to enhance the control of the reaction, batch operation is often turned into semi-batch operation, thereby allowing to control the reaction rate via the feed rate of one of the reactants (Page 5147, Left Column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ubrich and chosen to continuously feed the aqueous solution of hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) over the 10 hours after the VDF-CTFE were mixed in the reactor via a semi-batch operation, given Ubrich teaches this can allow control over the reaction rate thereby improving safety of the process.
Further, modified Shirane meets the limitation wherein the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA) complies with formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
108
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: R1, R2 and R3, equal to or different from each other, are independently selected from a hydrogen atom and a C1-C3 hydrocarbon group, and ROH is a hydrogen atom or a C1-C5 hydrocarbon moiety comprising at least one hydroxyl group and/or at least a carboxylic group (given Sakai teaches the third monomer of the copolymer can be chosen from “acrylic acid, methacrylic acid”, “mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) succinate, mono((meth) acryloyloxypropyl) succinate, and mono((meth)acryloyloxyethyl) phthalate” (P18, 22, 79), acrylic acid can be chosen as the hydrophilic (meth)acrylic monomer (MA)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights