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 Arguments
The examiner acknowledges that the amended claim set corrects the issues noted by the previous office action of (10 – 17 – 2025). All of the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks, see (Pgs. 2 – 3), filed on (1 – 16 – 2026), with respect to the amended feature(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Naarmann et al. (US 20050129838 A1, hereinafter Naarmann)in view of Solan et al. (US 20180138495 A1, hereinafter Solan) as evidenced by Malmonge et al. (Study of Pyroelectric Activity of…, 2003, hereinafter Malmonge)
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 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.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 5 – 7, 9 – 10 & 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann et al. (US 20050129838 A1, hereinafter Naarmann) in view of Solan et al. (US 20180138495 A1, hereinafter Solan) as evidenced by Malmonge et al. (Study of Pyroelectric Activity of…, 2003, hereinafter Malmonge)Regarding claim 1,
Method for manufacturing an electrode comprising a polymer matrix trapping an electrolyte, which method comprises:
a) preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature less than 100 °C,
ingredients constituting the electrode inside a mixer with two co-rotary interpenetrating screws rotating in a closed sleeve,
the composition comprising, as the ingredients constituting the electrode:
at least one electrode active material,
an electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent,
the polymer matrix comprising,
at least one polymer
suitable for gelling in contact with the electrolyte and thus trapping the electrolyte,
wherein the at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers comprising at least one repeat unit arising from a polymerization of a fluorinated monomer, and
wherein the polymer matrix (i) comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer which is distinct from the at least one organic solvent, or (ii) is devoid of the at least one solvent of the at least one polymer, in which case the at least one organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of carbonate solvents, ester solvents, ether solvents and ionic liquids, and
optionally, at least one electron conductor additive,
whereby the composition obtained is in the form of a paste having a dynamic viscosity greater than 5,000 Pa.s and less than or equal to 12,000 Pa.s, measured at a shear rate of 0.1 s, and
at a temperature ranging from 15 to 35°C; and
b) forming the electrode on a substrate, from the composition such obtained;
whereby the electrode comprising the polymer matrix trapping the electrolyte is obtained.
Naarmann teaches the following:
& b.) ([0040]) teaches that the components are mixed at an extruder temperature of 105 °C and discharged at a discharge temperature of 90° C. Persons skilled in the art will be familiar with deviations and modifications of these manufacturing conditions As such, preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature slightly above 100 °C is understood to be disclosed. Accordingly, while the processing temperature slightly above 100 °C, the case law for close but not overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2144.
([0040]) teaches extruding the components are mixed. Highlighting, applicant’s claims are directed towards a method. Highlighting, the extruder comprising twin-co-rotating screw in a sleeve is understood to be structural limitation. Accordingly, the case law for structural limitations in method claims may be recited. Where, it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeifer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
([0014]) teaches the active anode material is preferably a carbon capable of intercalation with Li. Examples of such carbon materials are synthetic or natural graphite, mesocarbon microbeads, globular graphite powder (e.g., SGB series globular graphite powder from SEC Corp.
([0018]) teaches that the active anode material generally comprises 5-20% by weight of supporting electrolytes and/or aprotic solvents which promote conductivity. ([0019]) teaches that supporting electrolytes which are particularly preferred are Li organoborates such as Li oxalatoborate or LiPF6. ([0040]) teaches that the granulated mixture is then passed to an extruder and 55% by weight of a 1 molar LiPF6 solution in ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate (1:1) is continuously added via a metering pump. As such, the use of electrolyte, LiPF6 comprising at least one organic solvent, i.e. ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate is understood to be disclosed.
& g.) ([0016]) teaches that The active anode material can also contain optional battery-specific additives, for example, in a quantity of 1-10% by weight, based on the electrode mass as a whole. Additives preferably used are polymers such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone; fluoroelastomers such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and vinylidene fluoride/hexafluoropropylene copolymer (e.g., respectively, Kynar 761® and Kynar 2810® from Atofina Chemicals, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.).([0039]) teaches that a composition comprising preferred mixture of components for the separator consists of the following components: 15% by weight of vinylidene fluoride/hexaflouropropylene copolymer (Kynar 2801®); 15% by weight of tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene/vinylidene fluoride terpolymer (Dyneon THV 120®); 5% by weight of styrene-butadiene copolymer is granulated. As such, the
([0024]) teaches that in contrast to prior processes, it is not just carbon black which is homogenized with a latex additive according to the present invention, but rather the entire anode material, including additives. If necessary, the supporting electrolytes are mixed and homogenized until present as a single phase suspension which is applied onto the conductor. In this way, a homogeneous layer of electrode mass is formed on the conductor. Highlighting, both poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVdF-HFP, such as Kynar 2801®) and tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene/vinylidene fluoride terpolymers (THV) are understood to be suitable for gelling when in contact with electrolytes
It should be noted that only (I) or (II) is required not both. In the case for option (I) ([0046]) teaches that the electrode production is carried out under standard conditions according to usual coating methods, polymer binders in a solvent, e.g. N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), as such the use of a solvent other than the organic solvent is understood to be disclosed. Additionally, ([0020]) teaches that solvents which are particularly preferred are aprotic solvents, such as alkyl carbonates, glycol ethers or perfluoroethers with ([0046]) showing a composition comprising ethylene/propylene carbonate and/or diethyl carbonate/ propylene carbonate. As such, the ethylene and/or diethyl carbonate are understood to be a solvent for the polymer, other than the propylene carbonate implemented for the electrolyte (LiPF6). While optional, in regard to (II). If electrode production is carried not out under standard conditions according to usual coating methods as noted above. It is understood that the only other solvent implemented are those mentioned on([0020]) which teaches that the solvents which are particularly preferred are aprotic solvents, such as alkyl carbonates, glycol ethers or perfluoroethers. As such, composition is understood to be devoid of the least one solvent of the polymer resulting in the at least one organic solvent being selected from the group consisting of carbonate solvents, ester solvents, ether solvents and ionic liquids.
([0016]) teaches that additives can include Sn powder (Tin powder). Where Sn (Tin) powder is a known electron conductor additive material.
& k.) ([0045]) teaches the mixtures are homogenized after the addition of a polymer dispersion to form a single-phase suspension. ([0046]) teaches that the mixture is processed into a paste and coated onto a conductor foil. Due to the composition and fabrication process of Naarmann matching that of applicant’s i.e., preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature less than 100 °C it is understood that the composition fabricated by Naarmann will have the same properties as that of applicant’s namely a composition obtained in the form of a paste having a dynamic viscosity greater than 5,000 Pa.s and less than or equal to 12,000 Pa.s, measured at a shear rate of 0.1 s, and at a temperature ranging from 15 to 35°C
& m.) ([0046]) teaches that the mixture is processed into a paste and coated onto a conductor foil.
Regarding Claim 1, Naarmann also teaching on ([0021]) that the components detailed above are thoroughly mixed and then homogenized with a polymer dispersion used as a binder in order to produce the electrode mass in the form of a single-phase suspension. This single-phase suspension is then applied as a homogeneous coating layer onto the conductor by means of a continuous or batch-wise coating method, for example. Naarmann is silent on the preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature less than 100 °C, and ingredients constituting the electrode inside a mixer with two co-rotary interpenetrating screws rotating in a closed sleeve and implementing various other aprotic solvents. In analogous art for a method for preparing an electrode that is made up of a composite material containing at least one active positive electrode in the presence of a lithium salt, (Abstract) Solan suggests details regarding preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature less than 100 °C, and ingredients constituting the electrode inside a mixer with two co-rotary interpenetrating screws rotating in a closed sleeve, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
& f.) ([0124]) teaches that heating the support polymer to a temperature of between Tg and Tg+50 °C., advantageously between Tg and Tg+25° C., can result in an electrode in gel form. Highlighting evidence from Malmonge (Pg. 473, ¶1) states that it can be seen from Fig. 8 that the glass transition temperature (Tg ) of the PVDF-HFP copolymer is around -35 °C and the melting point (Tm) is 143 °C. Accordingly, 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 processing and method of Solan by utilizing the knowledge that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the PVDF-HFP copolymer is around -35 °C, as taught by Malmonge, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known material property i.e., the glass transition temperature (Tg), of a known substance namely, PVDF-HFP copolymer for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Malmonge.Accordingly, implementing a Tg of -35 °C for PVDF-HFP provides for heating the support polymer to a temperature of between -35 °C and -35 °C +50 °C = 15 °C, thus yielding a heating range of -35 °C to 15 °C, which is found to overlap with applicant’s temperature range of introducing and mixing, at a temperature less than 100 °C. As such, the case law for overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Solan’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
([0062]) teaches that the extruder 10 comprises a sheath 11, extending along a longitudinal axis XX′, inside which one or several, for example two, worm screws are placed ([0064]) teaches that the mixing is done by mixing means 13 located on the worm screw(s). More particularly, the mixing means 13 interrupt the thread of the worm screws and may include vanes. The mixing means are known the one of ordinary skills and therefore they are not described in this application. The mixing zone is also designed to induce a high shear rate and thus, as we will see in the remainder of the description, orient the chains of a support polymer. As such, the ingredients constituting the electrode composition are understood to be treated inside a mixer with two co-rotary interpenetrating screws rotating in a closed sleeve.
([0069]) teaches that the elements forming the mix comprise an active electrode material. As such, the mixture composition comprise an active electrode material.
([0040]) teaches that the mix that will be extruded also comprises an alkali metal salt heat-solubilized in the dinitrile compound to form an electrolyte. As such, the mixture composition comprises an electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent. ([0110]) teaches that the dinitrile compound is malononitrile or succinonitrile. Highlighting that dinitrile compound is malononitrile or succinonitrile are known aprotic solvents.
([0069]) teaches that the elements forming the mix comprise a hot melt support polymer with a glass transition temperature Tg, soluble in the dinitrile compound. As such, the use of a least support polymer constituting the polymer matrix is understood to be disclosed.
([0126]) teaches that a support polymer comprising one of the PVDF-HFP 21216 and PVDF-HFP 21510 polymers, after gelling with the dinitrile compound, has crystalline regions that participate in good mechanical strength of the electrode, and amorphous regions capable of trapping a large quantity of the mix of alkali metal salt solubilized in the dinitrile compound. As such, the support polymer is understood to be suitable for gelling in contact with the electrolyte and thus trapping the electrolyte.
([0119]) teaches that the support polymer may include at least one of the elements chosen from among polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride 21216 (PVDF-HFP 21216), polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride 21510 (PVDF-HFP 21510), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(butyl methacrylate) (PBMA), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP). As such, PVDF-HFP is understood to be at least one support polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers comprising at least one repeat unit arising from a polymerization of a fluorinated monomer.
([0146]) teaches that, a solvent can be used to solubilize the support polymer and is then evaporated.
While noted to be optional ([0128]) teaches that the electronic conductivity of the active electrode material when it is in dispersed form (forming aggregates of active material) in the electrode, does not enable optimum electron transport. Thus, and advantageously, the mix may comprise an electronic conducting material designed to form a percolation network within the electrode.
& k.) Solan is understood to comprise the same composition, namely electrolyte, electrode active material, and least one polymer that is a gelling polymer, and optionally, at least one electron conductor additive that are prepared via extrusion at a temperature below 100° C. Thus, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited regarding the composition having a dynamic viscosity greater than 5,000 Pa.s and less than or equal to 12,000 Pa.s, measured at a shear rate of 0.1 s- and at a temperature ranging from 15 to 35°C. Where it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
([0115]) teaches that as soon as it arrives in the mixing zone, the entire mix is homogenised and then pushed in the pumping zone 14, and then into the die 15 to be formed into the required shape of the separating membrane. ([0047]) teaches that the gelled electrode is placed on a current collector after the extrusion step. As such, forming the electrode on a substrate, from the composition such obtained is understood to be disclosed.
([0126]) teaches that a support polymer comprising one of the PVDF-HFP 21216 and PVDF-HFP 21510 polymers, after gelling with the dinitrile compound, has crystalline regions that participate in good mechanical strength of the electrode, and amorphous regions capable of trapping a large quantity of the mix of alkali metal salt solubilised in the dinitrile compound. The use of such polymers can give electrodes with good mechanical strength and electrochemical performances compatible with their use in an alkali metal ion battery. As such, the electrode formed comprising a polymer matrix used for trapping the electrolyte is obtained.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying process to include a mixer that comprises two co-rotary interpenetrating screws rotating in a closed sleeve and preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature less than 100 °C, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mixer that comprises two co-rotary interpenetrating screws rotating in a closed sleeve and preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature less than 100 °C as it provides for a known means for the entire mix to be homogenised and then pushed in the pumping zone 14, and then into the die 15 to be formed into the required shape of the separating membrane, ([0115]) and implementing dinitrile compound solvents including malononitrile or succinonitrile (which known aprotic solvents). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., various mixing devices to homogenize the composition, namely, a twin-screw extruder with co-rotating screws, provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., aprotic solvents that comprise malononitrile or succinonitrile, for its intended purposes, namely a solvent, in a known environment, i.e, manufacturing a membrane in gel form for lithium-ion batteries, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent,
at least one metallic salt and
optionally an additive which is a carbonaceous compound.
Naarmann teaches the following:
& b.) ([0019]) teaches that supporting electrolytes which are particularly preferred are Li organoborates such as Li oxalatoborate or LiPF6. The supporting electrolytes are preferably used in combination with other additives such as MgO, Al2O3, SiO2 or silicates. ([0020]) adding that solvents which are particularly preferred are aprotic solvents, such as alkyl carbonates, glycol ethers or perfluoroethers. As such, the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent (alkyl carbonates, glycol ethers or perfluoroethers) and at least one metallic salt (LiPF6).
Highlighting that while limitation (c) is considered optional. However, ([0046]) teaches that if electrode production is carried out under standard conditions according to usual coating methods, polymer binders in a solvent, e.g. N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), are added to the anode and/or cathode mass containing intercalatable carbon and/or intercalatable heavy metal oxides. As such, the addition of an additive which is a carbonaceous compound, namely intercalatable carbon is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent,
at least one metallic salt and
optionally an additive which is a carbonaceous compound.
Regarding Claim 5, Naarmann is silent on the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent, at least one metallic salt and optionally an additive which is a carbonaceous compound. In analogous art for as applied above,Solan suggests details regarding the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent, at least one metallic salt and optionally an additive which is a carbonaceous compound, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
& b.) ([0098]) teaches that the alkali metal salt solubilised in the dinitrile compound forms the electrolyte, also called the SNx electrolyte. ([0111]) teaches that the dinitrile compound is succinonitrile. Succinonitrile is a hyperplastic, uninflammable and non-volatile organic compound with a melting temperature of 57 °C. As such, the use of an electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent is understood to be disclosed.
Highlighting that limitation (c) is considered optional.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the composition to include an electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent, and at least one metallic salt and optionally an additive which is a carbonaceous, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modifying composition to include a electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte comprising at least one organic solvent, and at least one metallic salt and optionally an additive which is a carbonaceous as it provides for a known the alkali metal salt such as LiPF6, in a known diluted solvent namely, succinonitrile 1M. Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., aprotic solvents that comprise malononitrile or succinonitrile, for its intended purposes, namely a solvent, in a known environment, i.e, manufacturing a membrane in gel form for lithium-ion batteries, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the composition further comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0046]) teaches that If electrode production is carried out under standard conditions according to usual coating methods, polymer binders in a solvent, e.g. N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), are added to the anode and/or cathode mass containing intercalatable carbon and/or intercalatable heavy metal oxides.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the composition further comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0046]) teaches that If electrode production is carried out under standard conditions according to usual coating methods, polymer binders in a solvent, e.g. N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), are added to the anode and/or cathode mass containing intercalatable carbon and/or intercalatable heavy metal oxides.
Regarding Claim 6, Naarmann is silent on the composition further comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer. In analogous art for as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding the composition further comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0146]) teaches that, a solvent can be used to solubilize the support polymer and is then evaporated.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the composition to include at least one solvent of the at least one polymer, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modifying composition to include at least one solvent of the at least one polymer as it provides for a known means to help dissolve the support polymer, ([00146]). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., a solvent, for its intended purposes, namely a dissolving a polymer, in a known environment, i.e, manufacturing a membrane in gel form for lithium-ion batteries, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Further comprising, after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0009]) teaches that the electrode mass is applied in the form of a single-phase suspension onto a conductor to produce a homogeneous coating on the coating. The electrode mass applied onto the conductor is then dried and adjusted to the desired layer thickness, such as by calendering. ([0043]) adding that the resulting homogeneous electrode mass is then applied by means of a roller or a pasting machine onto Cu foil (12 μm, non-primer coated) and dried in a high frequency dryer. The coating layer remaining on the Cu foil has a thickness of 35-40 μm. A homogeneous coating of thickness 20-32 μm is obtained by calendering at 60 – 70 °C. As such, after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent is provided by calendering at 60 – 70° C.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Further comprising, after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0009]) teaches that the electrode mass is applied in the form of a single-phase suspension onto a conductor to produce a homogeneous coating on the coating. The electrode mass applied onto the conductor is then dried and adjusted to the desired layer thickness, such as by calendering.
Regarding Claim 7, Naarmann is silent on after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent. In analogous art for as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0145]) teaches that the electrolytic membrane can also be formed by extrusion, or by a method called the ambient temperature solvent process. ([0146]) teaches that a solvent can be used to solubilize the support polymer and is then evaporated. As such, after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent is understood to be disclosed.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the process to include after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modifying the process to include after step b), a step of evaporating the at least one solvent as it provides for removing the solvent from the composition used for forming the electrolytic membrane, ([0141]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein step a) is implemented continuously.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that the granulated mixture is then passed to an extruder and 55% by weight of a 1 molar LiPF6 solution in ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate (1:1) is continuously added via a metering pump, mixed at an extruder temperature of 105° C., and discharged at a discharge temperature of 90° C. at the extruder slot die. As such, step a) is understood to be implemented continuously.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein step a) is implemented continuously.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that the granulated mixture is then passed to an extruder and 55% by weight of a 1 molar LiPF6 solution in ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate (1:1) is continuously added via a metering pump, mixed at an extruder temperature of 105° C., and discharged at a discharge temperature of 90° C. at the extruder slot die. As such, step a) is understood to be implemented continuously.
Regarding Claim 9, Naarmann is silent on step a) is implemented continuously. In analogous art for as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding step a) is implemented continuously, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0063]) teaches that a heating zone 12 is designed to melt at least one of the elements forming the mix, by increasing the temperature. The extruder is also provided with first feed means 16, for example a gravimetric feeder, in the heating zone 12, for adding elements that will form the mix. As such, the extruder is understood to be considered a continuous mixing device, in particular a twin-screw extruder used for compounding. Unlike batch mixing, where ingredients are loaded and mixed before being discharged, the twin screw extruder provides for a continuous process that involves a constant, metered flow of materials through the equipment.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the process to comprise step a) is implemented continuously, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modifying the process to comprise step a) is implemented continuously as it provides for an extruder with a contiguous a mixing zone 13, such that the entire mix is homogenised and then pushed in the pumping zone 14, ([0066] & [0115]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein step a) is carried out at ambient temperature or is carried out at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than 100 °C.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that the components are mixed at an extruder temperature of 105 °C and discharged at a discharge temperature of 90° C. Persons skilled in the art will be familiar with deviations and modifications of these manufacturing conditions As such, preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature slightly above 100 °C is understood to be disclosed. Accordingly, while the processing temperature slightly above 100 °C, the case law for close but not overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein step a) is carried out at ambient temperature or is carried out at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than 100 °C.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that the components are mixed at an extruder temperature of 105 °C and discharged at a discharge temperature of 90° C. Persons skilled in the art will be familiar with deviations and modifications of these manufacturing conditions. As such, preparing a composition by introducing and mixing, at a temperature slightly above 100 °C is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding Claim 10, Naarmann is silent on step a) is carried out at ambient temperature or is carried out at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than 100 °C. In analogous art for as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding step a) is carried out at ambient temperature or is carried out at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than 100 °C, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0124]) teaches that heating the support polymer to a temperature of between Tg and Tg+50 °C., advantageously between Tg and Tg+25° C., can result in an electrode in gel form. Highlighting evidence from Malmonge (Pg. 473, ¶1) states that it can be seen from Fig. 8 that the glass transition temperature (Tg ) of the PVDF-HFP copolymer is around -35 °C and the melting point (Tm) is 143 °C. Accordingly, 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 processing and method of Solan by utilizing the knowledge that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the PVDF-HFP copolymer is around -35 °C, as taught by Malmonge, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known material property i.e., the glass transition temperature (Tg), of a known substance namely, PVDF-HFP copolymer for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Malmonge.Accordingly, implementing a Tg of -35 °C for PVDF-HFP provides for heating the support polymer to a temperature of between -35 °C and -35 °C +50 °C = 15 °C, thus yielding a heating range of -35 °C to 15 °C, which is found to overlap with applicant’s temperature for step a) being at ambient temperature or is carried out at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than 100 °C. As such, the case law for overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Solan’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the process such hat step a) is carried out at ambient temperature or is carried out at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than 100 °C, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modifying the process such that step a) is carried out at ambient temperature or is carried out at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than 100 °C as it provides a mixing zone, the entire mix is homogenised, ([0114]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the composition further to step a) comprises from 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer or
comprises from 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer.
Naarmann teaches the following:
It should be note that only one is required amongst (a) and (b). However, ([0046]) teaches implementing at least one solvent of the at least one polymer. With ([0014]) and ([0016]) below detailing that a range of 51 to 90% by weight solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition / the electrode mass as a whole is understood to be disclosed. As such, a range of 51 to 90% by weight solid mass relative to the total mass is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition when it comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer.
([0014]) teaches that the active anode material can be used in the form of powders or fibres and can be employed in particular in a quantity of approximately 50 to 80% by weight, based on the electrode mass as a whole. As such, the composition is understood to not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer. ([0016]) teaches that he active anode material can also contain optional battery-specific additives, for example, in a quantity of 1-10% by weight, based on the electrode mass as a whole. Additives preferably used Sn powder amongst others. As such, a range of 51 to 90% by weight solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition / the electrode mass as a whole is understood to be disclosed. Accordingly, a range of 51 to 90% by weight solid mass relative to the total mass is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the composition further to step a) comprises from 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer or
comprises from 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer.
Naarmann teaches the following:
& b.) ([0014]) teaches that the active anode material can be used in the form of powders or fibres and can be employed in particular in a quantity of approximately 50 to 80% by weight, based on the electrode mass as a whole. As such, the composition is understood to not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer. ([0016]) teaches that he active anode material can also contain optional battery-specific additives, for example, in a quantity of 1-10% by weight, based on the electrode mass as a whole. Additives preferably used Sn powder amongst others. As such, a range of 51 to 90% by weight solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition / the electrode mass as a whole is understood to be disclosed. Accordingly, a range of 51 to 90% by weight solid mass relative to the total mass is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer.
Regarding Claim 12, Naarmann is silent on step a) comprises from 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer or comprises from 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer. In analogous art for as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding step a) comprises from 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer or comprises from 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0117]) teaches that the sum of the masses of the support polymer and the dinitrile compound in the positive electrode can be equal to 20% to 60%. ([0151]) gives an example composition that comprises LiFePO4 at 38 %, Carbon Black at 6.3 % and Multiwall Carbon Nanotubes at 6.3 %, which gives 50.6 % solids. As such, solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition is understood to comprise 80% to 40%, with an example of 50.6 % provided.
Highlighting that only one limitation amongst (a) & (b) is required.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the composition to comprise in step a) from 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer or comprises from 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modifying the composition to comprise from 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer or comprises from 83 to 90 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, when it does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer as it provides for a composition used to fabricate an electrode, ([0117]). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., 50% to 80 % of solid mass relative to the total mass of the composition, for its intended purposes, namely a constituents in a composition to form an electrode, in a known environment, i.e, membrane in gel for lithium-ion batteries, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
B.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann in view of Solan as evidence by Malmonge and in further view of Madray et al. (US 20120202114 A1, hereinafter Madray)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer.
Regarding Claim 8, Naarmann in view of Solan is silent on the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer. In analogous art for a method for preparing a positive electrode that is made up of a composite material containing at least one active positive electrode in the presence of a lithium salt, (Abstract) Madray suggests details regarding the use a solventless means for a composition utilized for fabricating a positive electrode, and in this regard, Madray teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches that producing positive electrodes by dry (solventless) extrusion. In this case, the various components of the composition of the electrode material are introduced into a single-screw or twin-screw extruder and then extruded through a flat die onto a support. The mixture of the various components of the electrode material however has a high viscosity, thereby generally limiting the content of active electrode material that it is possible to incorporate. Thus, in the case where LiFePO4
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann in view of Solan. By further modifying process to comprise a dry (solventless) extrusion, as taught by Madray. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a dry (solventless) extrusion as it provides for being extruded through a flat die onto a support, ([0007]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
C.) Claim(s) 8 & 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann in view of Solan as evidence by Malmonge and in further view of Dudley et al. (US 20020197535 A1, hereinafter Dudley)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer.
Regarding Claim 8, Naarmann in view of Solan is silent on the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer. In analogous art for a method for preparing a positive electrode that is made up of a composite material containing at least one active positive electrode, ([0039]) in the presence of a lithium salt, ([0075])) Dudley suggests details regarding the use a solventless means for a composition utilized for fabricating a positive electrode, and in this regard, Dudley teaches the following:
([0038]) teaches the materials that are coated may include solvent or not, solventless coatings being specific examples of extrusion coating processes. ([0039]) teaches that referred coating methods of these or other types may be practiced according to the invention using a slotted die coater, optionally in the form of a solventless extrusion process. Such extrusion coating methods can include slot coating a solventless.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Solan. By modifying process to comprise a dry (solventless) extrusion, as taught by Dudley. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a dry (solventless) extrusion as it provides for the coating material to be located at a distance from the substrate such that the material being coated normally does not fill the gap between the lips of the coating head and the moving substrate, ([0039]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 12,
Wherein: when the composition comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer, then
the composition further to step a) comprises from 11 % to 42 % by weight of the at least one solvent and
from 6 % to 11 % by weight of the electrolyte relative to the total weight of the composition, and
when the composition does not comprise a solvent of the at least one polymer,
then the composition further to step a) comprises from 10 % to 17 % by weight of the electrolyte relative to the total weight of the composition.
Naarmann teaches the following:
, b.) & c.) ([0018]) teaches that the active anode material generally comprises 5-20% by weight of supporting electrolytes and/or aprotic solvents which promote conductivity. Highlighting, that the implementation of solvent of the at least one polymer is understood to be optional depending on the coating techniques implemented as discussed on ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 15, Naarmann is silent on the composition comprising from 11 % to 42 % by weight of the at least one solvent, 6 % to 11 % by weight of the electrolyte relative to the total weight of the composition. In analogous art as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding the composition comprising from 11 % to 42 % by weight of the at least one solvent, 6 % to 11 % by weight of the electrolyte relative to the total weight of the composition, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
& b.) ([0091]) teaches that the alkali metal salt means a lithium salt. ([0136]) teaches Succinonitrile and lithium salt comprise 35 % of the composition. Where 35% is found to overlap with applicant’s range of (6 % to 11 % electrolyte + 11 % to 42 % solvent; 17 % to 53% of both) 17 % to 53% for both the electrolyte and solvent.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the composition to include an electrolyte and solvent in the amounts specified above and as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modify the composition to include an electrolyte and solvent in the amounts specified above as it provides for a known composition for fabricating an electrode. Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., an electrolyte and solvent in the amounts specified, for its intended purposes, in a known environment, i.e, manufacturing a membrane in gel form for lithium-ion batteries, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 15, Naarmann in view of Solan is silent on the composition is devoid of solvent and the amount of electrolyte utilized. In analogous art as applied above, Dudley suggests details regarding the amount of electrolyte utilized in a composition that is devoid of solvent, and in this regard, Dudley teaches the following:
([0089]) teaches Exemplary amounts may be, for example of the ionically conductive polymer, may be in the range from about 10 to about 40 weight. ([0090]) teaches that other polymers that are not ionically conductive may also be used in the electrode. Such polymer may be included to improve mechanical integrity or as a low-cost binder can comprise from about 0 to about 50 percent by weight of the total weight of polymer (the total amount of ionically-conductive and non-ionically-conductive polymer). With ([0093]) teaching that the electrolyte salt can be in the range from about 3 to about 15 weight percent based on the total weight of all electrode components. As such, the composition is understood to comprise between 10 to about 40 percent by weight ionically conductive, 0 to about 50 percent by weight of the total weight of other polymers and electrolytes from about 3 to about 15 weight percent based on the total weight of all electrode components. As such, providing a range of 10 + 0 + 3 to 15 + 40 + 15 or 13 % to 70% by weight solids, providing for 87 % to 30 % by liquid solvent. Where, for 87 % to 30 % liquid solvent is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 11 % to 42 % by weight of the at least one solvent.
& c.) ([0093]) teaches that the amount of electrolyte salt included in the electrode components should be enough to provide for a functioning electrode, e.g., to result in a sufficient level of ionic conductivity. ([0093]) teaches that examples of useful amounts of electrolyte salt can be in the range from about 3 to about 15 weight percent based on the total weight of all electrode components, preferably from about 5 to about 10 weight percent. Where 3 to about 15 weight percent based on the total weight of all electrode components is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 6 % to 11 % by weight for a composition with a solvent and 10 % to 17 % by weight for a composition without a solvent. Highlighting, that the amount of electrolyte salt is understood to impact the functioning level of the electrode by tailoring the ionic conductivity.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann in view of Solan. By further modifying process to comprise a dry (solventless) extrusion, as taught by Dudley. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a dry (solventless) extrusion as it provides for the coating material to be located at a distance from the substrate such that the material being coated normally does not fill the gap between the lips of the coating head and the moving substrate, ([0039]). Additionally, optimizing the electrolyte salt is understood to impact the functioning level of the electrode by tailoring the ionic conductivity, ([0093]). Accordingly, due to the electrolyte salt is impacting the functioning level of the electrode by tailoring the ionic conductivity. The case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
D.) Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann in view of Solan as evidence by Malmonge and in further view of Loba Chemie (MSDS of Malononitrile for Synthesis, 2015, hereinafter Chemie)Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein step a) is carried when the composition further comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer, at a temperature above the ambient temperature but less than the boiling temperature of the at least one solvent or
when the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer, at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than the melting temperature of the at least one polymer.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that polymers such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone; fluoroelastomers such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and vinylidene fluoride/hexafluoropropylene . ([0046]) teaches that the electrode production is carried out under standard conditions according to usual coating methods, polymer binders in a solvent, e.g. N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), as such the use of a solvent other than the organic solvent is understood to be disclosed. Additionally, ([0020]) teaches that solvents which are particularly preferred are aprotic solvents, such as alkyl carbonates, glycol ethers or perfluoroethers with ([0046]) showing a composition comprising ethylene/propylene carbonate and/or diethyl carbonate/ propylene carbonate. As such, the ethylene and/or diethyl carbonate are understood to be a solvent for the polymer, other than the propylene carbonate implemented for the electrolyte (LiPF6).
Regarding Claim 15, Naarmann is silent on wherein step a) is carried when the composition further comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer, at a temperature above the ambient temperature but less than the boiling temperature of the at least one solvent or when the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer, at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than the melting temperature of the at least one polymer. In analogous art as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding wherein step a) is carried when the composition further comprises at least one solvent of the at least one polymer, at a temperature above the ambient temperature but less than the boiling temperature of the at least one solvent or when the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer, at a temperature greater than the ambient temperature but less than the melting temperature of the at least one polymer, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0124]) teaches that heating the support polymer to a temperature of between Tg and Tg + 50 °C, advantageously between Tg and Tg + 25 °C, can result in an electrode in gel form. Highlighting evidence from Malmonge (Pg. 473, ¶1) states that it can be seen from Fig. 8 that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the PVDF-HFP copolymer is around -35 °C and the melting point (Tm) is 143 °C. ([0109]) teaches that the melting temperature of the dinitrile compound used in the invention is more than 20° C. Accordingly, implementing a Tg of -35 °C for PVDF-HFP provides for heating the support polymer to a temperature of between -35 °C and -35 °C + 50 °C = 15 °C, thus yielding a heating range of -35 °C to 15 °C.
It should be noted that only one limitation amongst (a) and (b) is required.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the process to comprise heating the support polymer to a temperature of between Tg and Tg + 50 °C as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modify the process to comprise heating the support polymer to a temperature of between Tg and Tg + 50 °C as it provides for mixing zone in which entire mix is homogenised and then extruded, ([0115]).
Regarding Claim 8, Naarmann in view of Solan is silent on the composition is devoid of solvent of the at least one polymer. In analogous art for malononitrile, Chemie suggests details regarding the boiling temperature of the at least one solvent, and in this regard, Chemie teaches the following:
(Pg. 4, 9.1 Information on basic physical and chemical properties) states that malononitrile has a melting point of 30 – 32 °C and has a boiling point of 220 °C.As such, operating at Solan heating range of -35 °C to 15 °C, is found to overlap applicant’s above ambient temperature but less than the boiling temperature (220 °C) of the at least one solvent.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann in view of Solan. By further modifying the process to comprise and implement the knowledge that the malononitrile has a melting point of 30 – 32 °C and has a boiling point of 220 °C, as taught by Chemie, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known material property i.e., the melting point (Tm) and boiling point (Bp), of a known substance namely, malononitrile for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Malmonge.
E.) Claim(s) 13 & 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann in view of Solan as evidence by Malmonge and in further view of Sonobe et al. (US 20170244095 A1, hereinafter Sonobe)
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers further comprising at least one other repeat unit arising from a polymerization of a monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid group, optionally in the form of a salt.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that additives preferably used are polymers such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone; fluoroelastomers such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and vinylidene fluoride/hexafluoropropylene copolymer (e.g., respectively
Regarding Claim 13, Naarmann is silent on the at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers further comprising at least one other repeat unit arising from a polymerization of a monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid group, optionally in the form of a salt.. In analogous art as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding the at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers further comprising at least one other repeat unit arising from a polymerization of a monomer comprising at least one carboxylic acid group, optionally in the form of a salt, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0119]) teaches that the support polymer may include at least one of the elements chosen from among polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride 21216 (PVDF-HFP 21216), polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride 21510 (PVDF-HFP 21510), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(butyl methacrylate) (PBMA), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP).
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the composition to comprise a as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride as it provide for a compound that can form an extruded gelled electrode with comprising support polymer, ([0053]) . Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride, for its intended purposes, namely a support polymer, in a known environment, i.e, manufacturing a membrane in gel form for lithium-ion batteries, provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 13, Naarmann in view of Solan is silent on one water soluble polymer being selected from fluorinated polymer and its polymerization of a monomer composition. In analogous art for the production of an electrode that comprises a water-soluble polymer and additives, (Abstract), the electrode is placed on current collector ([0006]), Sonobe suggests details regarding the water-soluble polymer being a fluoropolymer and polymerization of a monomer composition, and in this regard, Sonobe teaches the following:
([0102]) teaches that the water-soluble polymer can be obtained, for example, through radical polymerization of a monomer composition obtained by mixing monomers, additives, and polymerization solvent by a known method. ([0093]) teaches various constituents of the monomer composition including perfluoroalkyl ethyl acrylates and perfluoroalkyl ethyl methacrylates, amongst others. With ([0160]) adding that the particulate polymer can include various types of polymers including a fluoropolymer. ([0034]) teaches that the water-soluble polymer is obtained through polymerization of a monomer composition including: an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid and an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid salt.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann in view of Solan. By further modifying the composition’s water-soluble polymer to be a water-soluble fluoropolymer that is formed by polymerization, as taught by Sonobe, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known water-soluble polymer, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Sonobe. Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 13,
Wherein the at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers comprising one repeat unit arising from a polymerization of vinylidene fluoride, and said at least one other repeat unit.
Naarmann teaches the following:
([0016]) teaches that additives preferably used are polymers such as polyvinyl pyrrolidone; fluoroelastomers such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and vinylidene fluoride/hexafluoropropylene copolymer (e.g., respectively
Regarding Claim 13, Naarmann is silent on the at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers comprising one repeat unit arising from a polymerization of vinylidene fluoride, and said at least one other repeat unit. In analogous art as applied above, Solan suggests details the at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers comprising one repeat unit arising from a polymerization of vinylidene fluoride, and said at least one other repeat unit, and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
([0119]) teaches that the support polymer may include at least one of the elements chosen from among polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride 21216 (PVDF-HFP 21216), polyvinylidene hexafluoropropylene copolyfluoride 21510 (PVDF-HFP 21510), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(butyl methacrylate) (PBMA), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP). As such, the use of at least one polymer is selected from fluorinated polymers comprising one repeat unit arising from a polymerization of vinylidene fluoride is understood to be disclosed.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann in view of Solan. By further modifying the composition’s water-soluble polymer to be a water-soluble fluoropolymer that is formed by polymerization, as taught by Sonobe, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known water-soluble polymer, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Sonobe. Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
F.) Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naarmann in view of Solan as evidence by Malmonge and in further view of Malvern (Bohlin Gemini & CVO Rheometer User Manual, 2010, hereinafter Malvern)
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the paste has a dynamic viscosity from 7,000 Pa.s to 12,000 Pa.s measured at a temperature of 25 °C,
with a CVO Bohlin rheometer of the Malvern brand
equipped with a Peltier support and
a mobile cone-plane of diameter 40 mm and angle 4°.
Naarmann teaches the following:
Naarmann is understood to comprise the same composition, namely an electrolyte, a electrode active material, and least one polymer that is a gelling polymer, and optionally, at least one electron conductor additive that are prepared via extrusion at a temperature at slightly above 100° C. Thus, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited regarding the composition having a dynamic viscosity greater than 7,000 Pa.s and less than or equal to 12,000 Pa.s, measured at a shear rate of 0.1 s- and at a temperature ranging of 25 °C C. Where it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 14, Naarmann is silent on the paste has a dynamic viscosity from 7,000 Pa.s to 12,000 Pa.s measured at a temperature of 25 °C. In analogous art as applied above, Solan suggests details regarding the paste has a dynamic viscosity from 7,000 Pa.s to 12,000 Pa.s measured at a temperature of 25 °C, , and in this regard, Solan teaches the following:
Solan is understood to comprise the same composition, namely an electrolyte, a electrode active material, and least one polymer that is a gelling polymer, and optionally, at least one electron conductor additive that are prepared via extrusion at a temperature below 100° C. Thus, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited regarding the composition having a dynamic viscosity greater than 7,000 Pa.s and less than or equal to 12,000 Pa.s, measured at a shear rate of 0.1 s- and at a temperature ranging of 25 °C C. Where it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann. By modifying the process to comprise one that resembled that of a composition, namely an electrolyte, a electrode active material, and least one polymer that is a gelling polymer, and optionally, at least one electron conductor additive that are prepared via extrusion at a temperature below 100° C, as taught by Solan. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a fabrication process that comprises a composition, namely an electrolyte, a electrode active material, and least one polymer that is a gelling polymer, and optionally, at least one electron conductor additive that are prepared via extrusion at a temperature below 100° C as it provides for fabricating an electrode, ([0048]).
Regarding Claim 14, Naarmann in view of Solan is silent on the types of rheometer and the specifics of the rheometer equipment parameters. In analogous art for rheometers, (Title) Malvern suggests details regarding the use of other types of rheometers and the rheometer equipment parameters, and in this regard, Malvern teaches the following:
(Title Page) detailed that the disclosure is a Rheometer user manual for a CVO Bohlin rheometer of the Malvern brand.
(Pg. 2 – 2, Typical Rheometer System) teaches that the following illustration shows the interconnections of a typical rheometer system with a Peltier plate installed. (Pg. A – 3) teaches that the CVO 100 rheometer is provided with a Peltier plate that has a size of and weight listed. Where the Peltier plate acts as applicant’s Peltier support.
(Installing Geometry) teaches that the following example uses a Cone with a 4° angle and having a diameter of 40mm, as supplied with the rheometer. As such, a mobile cone-plane of diameter 40 mm and angle 4° is understood to be provided. Highlighting, applicant’s claims are directed towards a method step while the limitations (c) – (d) are understood to be directed towards the structure of the rheometer used to measure the viscosity of the composition. Accordingly, the case law for structural limitations in method claims may be recited. Where, it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeifer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
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 production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode that comprises mixing ingredients to form an electrode inside a mixer of Naarmann in view of Solan. By further modifying process to include a rheometer utilized to comprise a rheometer with the equipment parameters as aforesaid above and as taught by Malvern. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a rheometer with the equipment parameters aforementioned as it provides for precision instruments designed to provide accurate rheological measurements on a wide variety of materials, (Pg. 1 – 1, Introduction). Accordingly, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Missling et al. (US 20020136948 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) Described are methods of making electrodes for electrochemical systems, especially cathodes for lithium polymer batteries, and products prepared from the methods; the methods involve the use of a reciprocating extruder, the extrusion of essentially solvent-free systems, or both.
John M. Bilhorn (US 4976904 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) electrode materials containing active material in a fibrillated polymer binder are formed continuously into a cohesive electrode component by utilizing a barrel for processing the electrode materials. A mechanism is provided in the barrel for axially advancing the electrode materials, while mixing and kneading the materials to fibrillate the polymer binder.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743