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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 4-14 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-3 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claimed invention has specific differences from
Applicant argues that Cojocaru does not teach “wherein a ratio of the water-soluble polymer to the fluoride-based polymer increases outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material.”
In regards to argument a, the Examiner acknowledges that Cojocaru is silent as to a ratio of the water-soluble polymer to the fluoride-based polymer increases outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material. However, Iguchi is now relied upon to teach a positive electrode slurry comprising positive active material, conductive additive, fluororesin-based binder, CMC, and water made by mixing the active material and fluororesin first and then adding to an aqueous solution of CMC. The material taught by modified Cojocaru is made by substantially the same method as the instantly claimed material (See PGPUB [0087], [0106], [0036]-[0038]), specifically, the order of mixing the slurry components is: first a fluoride-based polymer is mixed with an active material then added to an aqueous mixture of a water-soluble polymer. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a higher concentration of fluoride-based polymer than CMC at the surface of the negative electrode active material because the fluoride-based polymer and active material are mixed together first. Therefore, a ratio of the water-soluble polymer to the fluoride-based polymer would increase outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “…the positive electrode active material and the water-borne binder are dispersed in the aqueous positive electrode slurry and wherein a ratio of the water-soluble polymer (CMC) to the fluoride-based polymer increases outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material”. The definition of dispersed is to distribute (something, such as fine particles) more or less evenly throughout a medium. It is unclear how the water-borne binder/fluoride-based polymer (claim 1 requires that the water-borne binder consist of a fluoride-based polymer) can be dispersed throughout the aqueous positive electrode slurry and also distributed throughout the aqueous positive electrode slurry such that a ratio of the water-soluble polymer (CMC) to the fluoride-based polymer increases outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3 are rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cojocaru (US 20140342224 A1) in view of Iguchi et al. (JP 2000106186 A) hereinafter “Iguchi”. Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Cojocaru teaches an aqueous positive electrode slurry comprising a positive electrode active material, a water-borne binder, a water-soluble polymer and an aqueous solvent, ([0165]-[0166] PVDF polymer latex, CMC, deionized water, SuperP, Lithium Cobaltum Oxide (LiCoO2) coated with copper; PVDF polymer latex is considered a water-borne binder and CMC meets the limitation of a water-soluble polymer [0022]-[0026]; [0137]) wherein the water-borne binder consists of a fluoride-based polymer ([0165]-[0166]; [0023]-[0026]; [0028]; [0031]-[0039]; [0050]), the water-soluble polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and the positive electrode active material and the water-borne binder are dispersed in the aqueous positive electrode slurry ([0165]-[0166] Example 3). The fluoropolymer taught by Cojocaru comprises at least 15% moles, more preferably more than 30% moles, of recurring units derived from at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer comprising at least one fluorine atom ([0028]), meeting the limitation of a fluoride-based polymer (emphasis added). Specifically, the aqueous VDF-AA Polymer Latex taught by Cojocaru in Example 1 ([0158]-[0162]) is considered a single fluoride-based polymer. Further, the fluoropolymer disclosed by Cojocaru meets the limitation of water-borne because it is provided as an aqueous dispersion ([0141]-[0142]; [0162]). Cojocaru teaches mixing fluoropolymer, CMC, water, conductive material, and positive electrode active material together and stirring ([0165]).
Cojocaru is silent as to a ratio of the water-soluble polymer to the fluoride-based polymer increasing outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material.
However, Iguchi teaches a positive electrode slurry comprising positive active material, conductive additive, fluororesin-based binder, and CMC suspended in an aqueous solution ([0024]). Iguchi teaches that the positive electrode active material is first mixed with the fluororesin binder and conductive material, then suspended in the aqueous solution of CMC ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material taught by Cojocaru by changing the order in which slurry components are added, such as by mixing the active material and fluororesin first and then adding to an aqueous solution of CMC as taught by Iguchi.
Both Cojocaru and Iguchi teach a positive electrode slurry comprising positive active material, conductive additive, fluororesin-based binder, CMC, and water. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the material taught by Cojocaru by changing the order in which slurry components are added, such as by mixing the active material and fluororesin first and then adding to an aqueous solution of CMC as taught by Iguchi, to achieve the predictable result of producing a positive electrode slurry. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done this with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Cojocaru is silent as to a ratio of the water-soluble polymer to the fluoride-based polymer increasing outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material.
However, the material taught by modified Cojocaru is made by substantially the same method as the instantly claimed material (See PGPUB [0087], [0106], [0036]-[0038]), specifically, the order of mixing the slurry components is: first a fluoride-based polymer is mixed with an active material then added to an aqueous mixture of a water-soluble polymer. Therefore, absent specific claimed features that result in the ratio of the water-soluble polymer to the fluoride-based polymer increasing outwards from a surface of the positive electrode active material, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the material taught by modified Cojocaru would possess the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Cojocaru further teaches wherein the fluoride-based polymer is particulate ([0078]-[0079]).
Cojocaru does not explicitly teach wherein the fluoropolymer is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), PVDF-HFP, PVDF-CTFE, PVDF-TrFE, or PVDF-TFE.
However, Cojucaro teaches that a fluoropolymer can be a homopolymer of a fluorinated monomer or can be a copolymer comprising recurring units derived from one or more than one fluorinated monomer such as vinylidene fluoride (VDF), trifluoroethylene (TrFE), hexafluoropropene (HFP), pentafluoropropylene, and hexafluoroisobutylene; ([0031]-[0033]; [0048]-[0054]; [0060]; [0165]-[0166]). Cojocaru teaches that the inclusion of a hydrogenated monomer, such as acrylic acid, is optional ([0031];[0040]-[0041]).
Therefore, it is within the scope of the teachings of Cojocaru, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to select the fluoride-based polymer from the selection taught by Cojocaru (for example PVDF, PVDF-CTFE, or PVDF-TrFE).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected PVDF, PVDF-CTFE, or PVDF-TrFE, for example, as the fluoropolymer binder in the aqueous electrode slurry taught by Cojocaru with a reasonable expectation of success because these polymers are taught within the disclosure. Further, 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).
Regarding claim 3, Cojocaru teaches wherein the fluoride-based polymer has an average particle size of preferably 50 nm to 300 nm, and the aqueous solvent is water ([0078]-[0079]; [0137]; [0165]-[0166]; [0023]-[0026]; [0041]). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishida Hironori (JP 4649692 B2) teaches a lithium secondary battery positive electrode mixture past comprising a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, a fluorine-based resin, a water-soluble polymer, and water ([0006]; [0010]-[0012]; [0015]; [0016]). Cited on the IDS filed 06/24/2022, reference is made to the enclosed translation.
Park et al. (KR 20150080858 A) teaches a secondary battery comprising water-dispersible polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) as an aqueous binder for a cathode mixture (abstract). Cited on the IDS filed 09/25/2023, reference is made to applicant provided translation.
Choi et al. (US 20110143198 A1) teaches a binder for a rechargeable lithium battery including a nitrile-based polymer nanoparticle and a fluorine-containing polymer nanoparticle (abstract; [0033]), a cellulose-based thickener ([0041]-[0042]), and a solvent including water ([0014]). Cited on the IDS filed 9/25/2023.
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 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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights