DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Appeal Brief filed on August 3rd, 2026. The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on August 3rd, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Appeal Brief on August 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered as described below:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 5, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1 and 3-20 have been withdrawn. However, regarding Claims 1, 3-4, 6-13, and 20 a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Sasaki (JP .
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant argues that fluoropolymer B is selected from isolated teachings from various portions of Bonnet after consulting the claims (Appeal Brief, Section E.). Applicant appears to suggest improper hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The prior art must be considered in its entirety for all that it discloses to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, Bonnet et al. teaches the fluoropolymer binder consisting of a mixture of a non-functionalized fluoropolymer A (KYNARFlex 2801 (a VF2(VDF)-HFP PVDF copolymer, para. 83)) and a fluoropolymer B bearing at least one functionality (2801-g-10 (KYNARFlex 2801 grafted with maleic anhydride, Table 1)) (para. 85, 91, Table 2). ). KYNARFlex 2801 contains VF2(VDF) and HFP monomer units (para 80, Table 1). Bonnet et al. further teaches grafting monomers in which can be used in the functionalized fluoropolymer B such as methyl acylate acids (acrylic/methacrylic monomer units) (para. 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 7 are disclosed in Bonnet. Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 contains allowable subject matter. Claims 1 depend on Claim 14 and therefore, also contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding at least independent Claim 14, the closest prior art of record is Bonnet et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20050069778 A1) and Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20170125815 A1).
Bonnet teaches a process for manufacturing a lithium ion battery electrode comprising mixing the active filler (LiCoO2), the fluoropolymer binder (PVDF), and the electronically conductive filler (conducting carbon black powder) that can be applied to a metal substrate (aluminum foil) (para. 88). The electrode formulation is spread or deposited on the metal substrate to obtain a lithium-ion battery electrode (para. 88). Amin-Sanayei et al. teaches solvent free electrode fabrication comprising a step of mixing the active filler, the binder and the electronically conductive filler to obtain an electrode formulation that can be applied to a metal support substrate by a solvent-free process; depositing said electrode formulation on the metal substrate by a solvent-free process so as to obtain a Li-ion battery electrode; and consolidating said electrode by a calendering and/or heating method (heat/thermomechanical treatment).
However, the solvent containing process of Bonnet cannot be modified by the teachings of the solvent-free process of Amin-Sanayei to form the electrode with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the prior art does not teach or suggest a solvent-free process for manufacturing a lithium ion battery electrode comprising mixing the active filler, the fluoropolymer binder, and the electronically conductive filler by means of a process that makes it possible to obtain an electrode formulation that can be applied to a metal substrate; and consolidating said electrode by a heat treatment and/or thermomechanical treatment.
Therefore, Claims 14-19 contain allowable subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 3-5 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 3 recites “at least one copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP).” It is unclear if said language requires at least one copolymer of VDF and at least one copolymer of HFP, or requires at least one copolymer of VDF-HFP (wherein the at least one copolymer comprises both VDF and HFP). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP).” It is unclear if said language requires a copolymer of VDF and a copolymer of HFP, or requires a copolymer of VDF-HFP (wherein the copolymer comprises both VDF and HFP). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “two or more copolymers of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP).” It is unclear if said language requires two or more copolymers of VDF and two or more copolymers of HFP, or requires two or more copolymers of VDF-HFP (wherein the two or more copolymers comprise both VDF and HFP). The disclosure recites: “the fluoropolymer A consists of a mixture of two or more VDF-HFP copolymers” (Spec., pg. 7, Lines 5-6). Therefore, the claim language should also recite the hyphenated version to remove ambiguity. Further, applicant suggests that the claim language requires distinct copolymers (Appeal Brief, pg. 11); however, the claim language does not specify “distinct” copolymers to prevent alternative interpretations. Upon overcoming the indefiniteness rejection, Claim 5 appears to contain allowable subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
To advance prosecution as discussed in the interview conducted on October 6th, 2026, the Office recommends amending Claims 3-5 to show hyphenated VDF-HFP, amending Claim 5 to specify that two or more “distinct” or “different” copolymers are required in view of applicants arguments (Appeal Brief, Section D.), and incorporating Claim 5 into Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Sasaki (JP PG Pub. No. 2010098186 A) as further evidenced by Bizet et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180355206 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bonnet et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery electrode comprising an electroactive layer containing active fillers such as mixed oxide fillers or carbon and/or graphite fillers (para. 2-3), electronically conductive fillers (conducting fillers such as carbon black), and a fluoropolymer functioning as a “tie-it” ensuring cohesion of the electroactive layer in which is functionally analogous to a binder (para. 67) as further evident by Bizet et al. (teaching a lithium-ion battery electrode comprising an active filler for an anode or cathode (para. 16, 19, 41), an electronically conductive filler (para. 2), and a fluoropolymer binder (para. 20)). Therefore, fluoropolymer and fluoropolymer binder will be used interchangeably hereinafter to describe the fluoropolymer of Bonnet at al.
Bonnet et al. teaches the fluoropolymer binder consisting of a mixture of KYNARFlex 2801 (a VF2(VDF)-HFP PVDF copolymer, para. 83) analogous to a non-functionalized fluoropolymer A and 2801-g-10 (KYNARFlex 2801 grafted with maleic anhydride, Table 1) analogous to a fluoropolymer B bearing at least one functionality (para. 85, 91, Table 2). As described, the fluoropolymers A and B can include KYNARFlex 2801 in which contains a VDF and HFP fluoromonomer (para. 83). Further, the grafting monomer of fluoropolymer B can include a carboxylic acid functional group analogous to monomer units bearing at least one carboxylic acid function (para. 41). 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). One of ordinary skill in the would be motivated to select a carboxylic acid monomer as Bonnet et al. describes its suitability in a binder (tie) for providing a battery high specific capacitance and stability (para. 6).
Bonnet et al. teaches a binder composition comprising an analogous fluoropolymer A and fluoropolymer B. Fluoropolymer A refers to a non-functionalized fluoropolymer A in which an example of KYNARFlex 2801 is provided, while fluoropolymer B is a functionalized fluoropolymer in which an example of KYNARFlex 2801 grafted with maleic anhydride is provided (para. 83, 85, 91, Table 1-2). Bonnet et al. further describes fluoropolymer A comprising a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) homopolymer (para. 29) or KYNARFlex 2801 can be used as fluoropolymer A in which is a VDF and HFP copolymer (para. 80). Further, fluoropolymer B in which can be a functionalized fluoropolymer A can include a monomer of VDF or VDF and HFP monomer units (para. 80, 91, Table 1-2). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Bonnet et al. does not teach that fluoropolymer A and fluoropolymer B are in the form of a powder, and have a mean particle size of from 10 nm to 1 mm.
In the same field of endeavor, Sasaki teaches analogous art of a lithium battery electrode comprising a fluoropolymer binder in the form of a powder (used to form a mixed powder electrode composition) having an average particle size of about 0.8 microns ([0089], [0054] further teaches that the binder can exist in powder form). Sasaki teaches that the shape and structure of the binder particles is not limited, but is preferred as particles in powder form to provide good binding properties with the current collector, and suppresses deterioration of the capacity of the prepared electrode ([0054]). Further, Sasaki teaches that the average particle size provides sufficient adhesion between the obtained electrode composition layer and the current collector, increases the capacity of the electrochemical device, and decreases the internal resistance ([0056]).
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 fluoropolymers (A and B) of Bonnet et al. be in the form of a powder and have a mean particle size of about 0.8 microns as taught by Sasaki, within the claimed range of 10 nm to 1 mm (equivalent to 0.01 microns to 1000 microns). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a binder that exhibits good binding properties with the current collector, suppresses deterioration of the capacity of the prepared electrode, and decreases the internal resistance as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the HFP content of a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) copolymer of fluoropolymer A such as KYNARFlex 2801 of 11% (para. 80), within the claimed range of 6% to 55%. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the percentages provided by Bonnet et al. to represent a percent by weight rather than volume as the fluoropolymer is present in a solid powder form (para. 56). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 4, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the HFP content of a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) copolymer of fluoropolymer A such as KYNARFlex 2801 of 11% by weight (para. 80), within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 3% by weight. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the percentages provided by Bonnet et al. to represent a percent by weight rather than volume as the fluoropolymer is present in a solid powder form (para. 56). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 6, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Bonnet et al. teaches a binder composition comprising an analogous fluoropolymer A and fluoropolymer B. Bonnet et al. further describes fluoropolymer A comprising a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) homopolymer (para. 29). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 7, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Bonnet teaches fluoropolymer B as a grafted or functionalized fluoropolymer. Fluoropolymer B can include 2801-g-10 in which is grafted KYNARFlex 2801 (fluoropolymer A) (para. 80-84, Table 1). KYNARFlex 2801 contains VF2(VDF) and HFP monomer units (para 80, Table 1). Bonnet et al. further teaches grafting monomers in which can be used in the functionalized fluoropolymer B such as methyl acylate acids (acrylic/methacrylic monomer units) (para. 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 9, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches a weight content of a blend forming a composition functionally equivalent to a binder comprising a weight content of fluoropolymer A of 0 to 99%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 10% to 99% inclusive; and a weight content of modified fluoropolymer (fluoropolymer B) of 1 to 100% (para. 16), within and overlapping the claimed range of 1% to 90% inclusive. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 10, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the active filler layer can include mixed lithium oxides in which comprises lithium metal (para. 67). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 11, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the active as LiCoO2 (para. 88). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 12, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches conductive fillers such as carbon black (para. 59). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 13, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches an example (Example 3) comprising 91% LiCoO2 (active filler), within the claimed range of 50% to 99%; 3% conducting carbon black (conductive filler), within the claimed range of 0.05% to 25%; 6% of PVDF (polymer binder) (para. 88), within the claimed range of 0.05% to 25%. Bonnet et al. further teaches an additive of a dispersant such as NMP in which is not present in the final formulation or present in a negligible amount as the sum of all of the percentages is 100% (para. 88). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Sasaki (JP PG Pub. No. 2010098186 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Lefebvre et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20140158185 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Bonnet et al. is modified by Sasaki teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Bonnet teaches fluoropolymer B as a grafted or functionalized fluoropolymer A. Fluoropolymer B can include 2801-g-10 in which maleic anhydride is grafted onto KYNARFlex 2801, a VF2(VDF)-HFP copolymer (para 80-85). It is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the grafting technique to include grafting onto a backbone of the copolymer as further evident by Lefebvre et al. in which teaches grafting a fluoropolymer where functional groups are grafted onto a backbone of the polymer (para. 37). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Sasaki (JP PG Pub. No. 2010098186 A) as further evidenced by Plee et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20110297889 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Bonnet et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the secondary lithium-ion battery including the described binder composition as the positive electrode (cathode) or negative electrode (anode) (para. 67). Further, although omitted from Bonnet et al.’s disclosure, it is well known in the field of endeavor for a secondary lithium-ion battery to include a separator, anode, and cathode in which are essential to battery operation and performance as further evident by Plee et al. (para. 2, 99).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights