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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to specify the weight content of fluoropolymers A and B
Claim 7 cancelled
New claim 19 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Additionally, applicant’s arguments regarding the additional claims are the same. Therefore, the rejection of all previously presented claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (US 20200259149 A1), which teaches a fluoropolymer binder that meets all of the claimed limitations. All the rejections of dependent claims remain in place and unchanged, other than now relying on the teachings of Lee when necessary. The sole exception is claim 5, which, in view of the amendments made to claim 1, is now considered to contain allowable subject matter.
New claim 19 is rejected by Muraoka (JP 2001307735A) in view of Okae (US 20190103631 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka (JP 2001307735A) in view of Lee (US 20200259149 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muraoka teaches all of the following elements
A Li-ion battery electrode (“The present invention uses a positive electrode using a lithium-containing composite oxide as an active material,” Muraoka [0001])
comprising an active filler for anode or cathode, (“The present invention uses a positive electrode using a lithium-containing composite oxide as an active material,” Muraoka [0001])
an electronically conductive filler (“The positive electrode plate 4 absorbs and holds the lithium cobalt composite oxide as the active material, the carbon black as the conductive agent,” Muraoka [0015])
and a fluoropolymer binder, (“In a lithium secondary battery composed of an aqueous electrolytic solution, P(VdF-HFP) having a hexafluoropropylene composition ratio A of 2% by weight to 12% by weight and a hexafluoropropylene composition ratio B of 20% by weight to 40% by weight. % Of P(VdF-HFP) is used as at least one of the binder for the positive electrode, the binder for the negative electrode, and the polymer for the separator, which is a lithium secondary battery.” Muraoka [0013])
Muraoka is silent on Fluoropolymer A and B having the claimed weight ratios compared to each other and HFP content. However, Lee teaches a fluoropolymer mixture used in a binder for a separator that meets all of the claimed limitations. Since Muraoka teaches that its binder can be used in an electrode or in a separator (“[the fluoropolymer binder] is used as at least one of the binder for the positive electrode, the binder for the negative electrode, and the polymer for the separator, which is a lithium secondary battery.” Muraoka [0013])”, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the separator binder of Lee could also easily be substituted into an electrode.
and a fluoropolymer binder, characterized in that said binder consists of a mixture consisting of: (“According to the present disclosure, the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is a binder polymer” Lee [0073] and “According to the present disclosure, the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is a binder polymer” Lee [0074]. In this case, the combination of first and second copolymers of Lee forms a binder including the claimed mixture.)
a fluoropolymer A which comprises at least one copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) having an HFP content of from 3% to 12% by weight, and (“According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, each of the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer and the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer independently may include a vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit; and at least one additional repeating unit derived from hexafluoropropylene,” Lee [0082] and “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 99:1-90:10, 99:1-91:9, or 99:1-92:8, and the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 89:11-70:30, 88:12-70:30, or 86:14-75:25.” Lee [0086]. In this case, the second copolymer of Lee acts as fluoropolymer A, having an HFP content range of between 11-30%, which overlaps the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ------11-30% for the weight ratio of the additional repeating unit (HFP) overlaps the claimed range of 3-12% for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a fluoropolymer B which comprises at least one VDF homopolymer and/or at least one VDF-HFP copolymer, said fluoropolymer B having a weight content of HFP which is at least 3% lower than the weight content of HFP of the polymer A; (“According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, each of the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer and the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer independently may include a vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit; and at least one additional repeating unit derived from hexafluoropropylene,” Lee [0082] and “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 99:1-90:10, 99:1-91:9, or 99:1-92:8, and the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 89:11-70:30, 88:12-70:30, or 86:14-75:25.” Lee [0086]. In this case, the first copolymer of Lee acts as fluoropolymer B, having an HFP content of between 1-10%, which overlaps the claimed range/is nearly always at least 3% lower than the content of polymer A.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-10% for the weight ratio of the additional repeating unit (HFP), which would be anywhere from 1-24% lower than the first copolymer, overlaps the claimed range of at least 3% lower than for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
said mixture comprises:
i. a weight content of fluoropolymer A of greater than or equal to 1% and less than 20%, and ii. a weight content of fluoropolymer B of less than or equal to 99% and greater than 80%. (“Herein, the weight ratio of the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer to the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer may be 90:10-40:60,” Lee [0081]. In this case, the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer of Lee is fluoropolymer B and the second PVDF copolymer of Lee is fluoropolymer A. If the ratio was 90:10, this would meet the claimed ratio. See table below for a comparison of Lee vs. the instant invention which shows that all ranges overlap)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 90:10-40:60 for the weight ratio of the first and second copolymer, overlaps the claimed range of 99:1-80:20 for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Invention
Lee
Fluoropolymer AHFP: 3-12%Mass ratio: 1-20%
Copolymer 2HFP: 11-30%Mass ratio: 10-60%
Fluoropolymer BHFP: < 3% compared to A or PVDF homopolymerMass ratio: 80-99%
Copolymer 1HFP: 1-10%Mass ratio: 40-90%
Muraoka and Lee are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium secondary batteries containing mixtures of fluoropolymers as a binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binder of Muraoka, which is stated to be usable in an electrode or separator, with the binder composition of Lee, as this would be a simple substitution of one known fluoropolymer binder for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
By substituting the fluoropolymer containing binder of Muraoka with that of Lee, the limitations of claims 2, 3 are met as well. Therefore, no further modification or motivation would be needed to meet the additional limitations of the dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, modified Muraoka using the binder mixture of Lee teaches all of the following elements
The electrode as claimed of claim 1, wherein the HFP content in said at least one copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP)VDFHFP copolymer forming part of the composition of said fluoropolymer A is greater than or equal to 6% (“According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, each of the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer and the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer independently may include a vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit; and at least one additional repeating unit derived from hexafluoropropylene,” Lee [0082] and “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 99:1-90:10, 99:1-91:9, or 99:1-92:8, and the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 89:11-70:30, 88:12-70:30, or 86:14-75:25.” Lee [0086]. In this case, the second copolymer of Lee acts as fluoropolymer A, having an HFP content range of between 11-30%, which overlaps the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ------11-30% for the weight ratio of the additional repeating unit (HFP) overlaps the claimed range of 6-12% for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, modified Muraoka using the binder mixture of Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode as claimed of claim 1, wherein the fluoropolymer A consists of a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) having an HFP content of greater than or equal to 3%. (“According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, each of the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer and the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer independently may include a vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit; and at least one additional repeating unit derived from hexafluoropropylene,” Lee [0082] and “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 99:1-90:10, 99:1-91:9, or 99:1-92:8, and the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 89:11-70:30, 88:12-70:30, or 86:14-75:25.” Lee [0086]. In this case, the second copolymer of Lee acts as fluoropolymer A, having an HFP content range of between 11-30%, which overlaps the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ------11-30% for the weight ratio of the additional repeating unit (HFP) overlaps the claimed range of 3-12% for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, modified Muraoka using the binder mixture of Lee teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 1, wherein the fluoropolymer B consists of a VDF-HFP copolymer. (“According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, each of the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer and the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer independently may include a vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit; and at least one additional repeating unit derived from hexafluoropropylene,” Lee [0082] and “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the first polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 99:1-90:10, 99:1-91:9, or 99:1-92:8, and the weight ratio of the vinylidene fluoride-derived repeating unit to the additional repeating unit in the second polyvinylidene fluoride copolymer is 89:11-70:30, 88:12-70:30, or 86:14-75:25.” Lee [0086]. In this case, the first copolymer of Lee acts as fluoropolymer B, consisting of a VDF-HFP copolymer in the case where HFP is chosen as the additional repeating unit.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Muraoka teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 1, wherein said active filler is selected from the group of lithium metal, graphite, silicon/carbon composites, silicon, graphene, fluorographites of CFx type where x is between 0 and 1 and titanates of LiTi5Oi2 type (“the present invention provides a non-aqueous electrolyte type lithium secondary battery in which a lithium-containing composite oxide is used as a positive electrode active material and a graphite material capable of lithium insertion/desorption reaction is used as a negative electrode.” Muraoka paragraph 0039)
Regarding claim 9, modified Muraoka teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 1, wherein said active filler is selected from the group of active materials of LiMO2 type, of LiMPO4 type, Li2MPO3F type, f-Li2MSiO4 type where M is Co, Ni, Mn, Fe or a combination of these, of LiMn204 type and Ss type (“The present invention is directed to a positive electrode using a lithium-containing composite oxide as an active material,” Muraoka [0013] and “Reference numeral 4 is a positive electrode plate using a lithium-cobalt composite oxide as an active material,” Muraoka [0015])
Regarding claim 10, modified Muraoka teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 1, wherein the conductive fillers are selected from carbon blacks, natural or synthetic graphites, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, metal fibers and powders, conductive metal oxides, er-and mixtures thereof. (“The positive electrode plate 4 absorbs and holds the lithium cobalt composite oxide as the active material, the carbon black as the conductive agent, and the nonaqueous electrolytic solution,” Muraoka [0015])
Regarding claim 18, modified Muraoka teaches all of the following elements:
A secondary Li-ion battery comprising an anode, a cathode and a separator, wherein at least one of the anode or cathode comprises the composition of claim 1. (“In a lithium secondary battery composed of an aqueous electrolytic solution, P(VdF-HFP) having a hexafluoropropylene composition ratio A of 2% by weight to 12% by weight and a hexafluoropropylene composition ratio B of 20% by weight to 40% by weight. % Of P(VdF-HFP) is used as at least one of the binder for the positive electrode, the binder for the negative electrode, and the polymer for the separator, which is a lithium secondary battery.” Muraoka [0013])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Lee, as shown in claim 1, further in view of Cojocaru (US 20170350015) with evidentiary support from Wang et Al (2018, Fabrication and properties of PVDF and PVDF-HFP microfiltration membranes. J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 135, 46711).
Regarding claim 4, modified Muraoka teaches the electrode of claim 1, as shown above. Muraoka fails to teach the following:
The electrode as claimed of claim 1, wherein the fluoropolymer A consists of a mixture of two or more copolymers of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP)VDFHFP copolymers, the HFP content of each copolymer being greater than or equal to 3%.
However, Cojocaru teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Muraoka. Specifically, Cojocaru teaches:
The electrode as claimed of claim 1, wherein the fluoropolymer A consists of a mixture of two or more copolymers (“For the purpose of the present invention, the expression “at least one fluoropolymer [polymer (F)]” is intended to denote one or more than one polymers (F). Mixtures of polymers (F) can be advantageously used for the purpose of the invention.” Cojocaru paragraph 0037) of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP)VDFHFP copolymers, the HFP content of each copolymer being greater than or equal to 3%. (“The polymer (VDF) is preferably a polymer comprising: (aa) at least 50% by moles, preferably at least 70% by moles, more preferably at least 80% by moles of recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF); (bb) optionally, from 0.1% to 20% by moles, preferably from 0.1% to 15% by moles, more preferably from 0.1% to 10% by moles of a fluorinated monomer different from VDF, said fluorinated monomer being preferably selected from the group consisting of vinylfluoride (VF.sub.1), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), hexafluoropropene (HFP),” Cojocaru paragraphs 0048-0050. Cojocaru objectively teaches a fluoropolymer that is stated to contain 1 or more polymers, which can comprise VDF and HFP with a weight content of at least 3% HFP, therefore meeting the limitations of claim 4)
Muraoka and Cojocaru are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of electrode materials containing VDF-HFP fluoropolymers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluoropolymer mixture of Muraoka to include a mixture of 2 or more polymers as fluoropolymer A each having an HFP content of 3% or more, as taught by Cojocaru, in order to effectively balance the advantages given by HFP inclusion in a fluoropolymer, such as increases in antifouling property and chemical resistance, with the advantages of a higher VDF content, such as having a lower polymer concentration and increased porosity. (Wang et Al 2018, conclusion) This would be desirable in an electrode material as the ability to tune the specific properties of a binder in order to optimize performance is useful for maximizing performance.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Lee, as shown in claim 1, and further in view of Chia (US 20050266310 A1)
Regarding claim 11, modified Muraoka teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Muraoka additionally teaches all of the following elements:
The electrode of claim 1 having the following composition by weight:
50% to 99% of active filler, 0.05% to 25% of conductive filler, 0.05% to 25% of polymer binder, (“(Example 1) [Positive electrode] 100 parts by weight of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) as a lithium-containing composite oxide, 5 parts by weight of acetylene black as a conductive agent, and the constituent ratio A of hexafluoropropylene is 2.2% by weight. 8 parts by weight of a polymer having a mixing ratio of 70% by weight: 30% by weight of P(VdF-HFP) and P(VdF-HFP) in which the composition ratio B of hexafluoropropylene is 21% by weight is kneaded and dispersed with acetone.” Muraoka [0018] The values used in the example given by Muraoka are all within the claimed ranges, as it would consist of 88.5% active filler, 4.4% conductive filler, and 7.1% polymer binder)
Muraoka fails to teach the following:
0 to 5% of at least one additive selected from the list: plasticizer, ionic liquid, dispersant for the fillers, flow agent for the formulation, fibrillating agent, the sum of all these percentages being 100%.
However, Chia teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Muraoka:
0 to 5% of at least one additive selected from the list: plasticizer, ionic liquid, dispersant for the fillers, flow agent for the formulation, fibrillating agent, the sum of all these percentages being 100%. (“the positive electrode precursor sheet comprises 50-80 wt. % of a transition metal chalcogenide active material, 6-14 wt. % of the polymeric binder, up to 23 wt. % plasticizer, and up to 13 wt. % conductive carbon black.” Chia paragraph 0011. The ranges for weight percentage of active filler, conductive filler, and polymer binder of Chia are encompassed by those of the claimed invention, and therefore anticipate them.)
The range taught by Chia for the amount of plasticizer added, up to 23% encompasses the claimed range of 0-5%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.)
Muraoka and Chia are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries containing polymeric binders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode material containing a multi-part fluoropolymer binder of Muraoka with the composition containing specific weight amounts of active material, conductive filler, binder, and plasticizer of Chia in order to improve the dispersion and porosity of the electrode material “Substantially all of the plasticizer is subsequently removed, such as by extraction, to form the final electrode, but is used in the precursor sheet for the benefits of improved dispersion and creating porosity.” (Chia paragraph 0015) Chia additionally teaches that the purpose of its invention is to create an electrode precursor material that can achieve desirable energy density, which would additionally be a desirable feature in an electrode material such as that of Muraoka.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Lee, as shown in claim 1, in view of Cheng (US 20170098818 A1) with evidentiary support from Eskra (US 20130309414 A1) and Ludwig (Ludwig, B., Zheng, Z., Shou, W. et al. Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-ion Batteries. Sci Rep 6, 23150 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23150).
Regarding claim 12, modified Muraoka teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Muraoka fails to teach the following:
A process for producing the Li-ion battery electrode of claim 1,
said process comprising the following steps: - mixing the active filler, the fluoropolymer binder and the electronically conductive filler by means of a process which makes it possible to obtain an electrode formulation that can be applied to a metal 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 heat treatment and/or thermomechanical treatment.
However, Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 12 that are not found in Muraoka:
A process for producing the Li-ion battery electrode of claim 1: (“The following describes a solvent-free dry powder coating process for making LiNi.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3O.sub.2 (NMC) cathodes in lithium-ion batteries.” Cheng paragraph 0044)
said process comprising the following steps: mixing the active filler, the fluoropolymer binder and the electronically conductive filler by means of a process which makes it possible to obtain an electrode formulation that can be applied to a metal substrate by a solvent-free process; (“The method includes mixing and/or milling dry powders of an active material, a binder and an electrically conducting material and depositing by electrostatic spray deposition on a surface, such as a metal surface (aluminum or copper foil).” Cheng paragraph 0029)
depositing said electrode formulation on the metal substrate by a solvent-free process so as to obtain a Li-ion battery electrode, and (“The method includes mixing and/or milling dry powders of an active material, a binder and an electrically conducting material and depositing by electrostatic spray deposition on a surface, such as a metal surface (aluminum or copper foil).” Cheng paragraph 0029. Additionally, Cheng specifies that the spray containing an electrode formulation is applied to a substrate in paragraph 0020, “The application process involves applying a charge to the particles and spraying them onto a grounded substrate”)
consolidating said electrode by a heat treatment and/or thermomechanical treatment. (“The dry-powder-coated electrodes were transferred to the oven and heated in air for 1 h at 170° C.” Cheng paragraph 0058)
Cheng and Muraoka are considered to be analogous because they are both related to electrodes for Li-ion batteries containing fluoropolymer binders, active fillers, and conductive fillers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode containing all of the elements of claim 1 of Muraoka with the solvent-free method of formation of Cheng in order to reduce costs and environmental damage associated with using a solvent-based method of fabricating electrodes for Li-ion batteries. This would be desirable for an electrode formation method because (“the costs associated with handling, reclaiming, and ultimately disposing of these environmentally challenging solvents, the cost of manufacturing Li-ion and other solvent-based electrodes can be excessive.” Eskra paragraph 0009). Additionally, research published by Ludwig et al in 2016 demonstrates a solvent-free process of manufacturing electrodes for Li-ion batteries which increases performance in bonding strength (Ludwig, abstract), therefore there was information published prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in the field of the claimed invention, which shows that a solvent-free method can both reduce costs and improve performance of an electrode for a Li-Ion battery. The motivation to use the process of electrode formation of Cheng applies to all of claims 12-17, as they are all directed towards a solvent-free process of forming the electrode material.
Regarding claim 13, modified Muraoka with Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Muraoka fails to teach the following:
The process as claimed of claim 12, wherein the mixing step is carried out in two stages: - mixing the electronically conductive filler and the fluoropolymer binder using a solvent-free process or by co-spraying, to obtain an intimate mixture, then - mixing the active filler with said intimate mixture using a solvent-free mixing process, to obtain an electrode formulation.
However, Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 13 that are not found in Muraoka:
The process as claimed of claim 12, wherein the mixing step is carried out in two stages: - mixing the electronically conductive filler and the fluoropolymer binder using a solvent-free process or by co-spraying, to obtain an intimate mixture, then - mixing the active filler with said intimate mixture using a solvent-free mixing process, to obtain an electrode formulation. (“Alternatively to pre-mixing the active material, the binder and the electrically conductive material, each may be separately applied to the surface by electrostatic deposition. They may be applied simultaneously through different spray guns, or may be applied sequentially in any order.” Cheng paragraph 0034. By definition, if the three different parts of the electrode formulation may be applied simultaneously or in any order, a permutation of that would be to apply the fluoropolymer binder and conductive filler simultaneously, via co-spraying, and then in a second step spraying the active material, thus completing the formation of the electrode formulation in a two-step process identical to that of the claimed method)
Regarding claim 14, modified Muraoka with Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Muraoka fails to teach the following:
The process of claim 12, wherein said mixing step is carried out by a process selected from the group of: agitation, air- jet mixing, milling of the mixture, high-shear mixing, mixing with a V-mixer, mixing with a screw mixer, double-cone mixing, drum mixing, conical mixing, double Z-arm mixing, mixing in a fluidized bed, in a planetary mixer, by extrusion, by calendering, or by mechanofusion.
However, Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 14 that are not found in Muraoka:
The process of claim 12, wherein said mixing step is carried out by a process selected from the group of: agitation, air- jet mixing, milling of the mixture, high-shear mixing, mixing with a V-mixer, mixing with a screw mixer, double-cone mixing, drum mixing, conical mixing, double Z-arm mixing, mixing in a fluidized bed, in a planetary mixer, extrusion, calendering, or mechanofusion. (“The active material, binder and electrically conducting material can be mixed together in a suitable device prior to electrostatic spray deposition, such as in a drum or a hopper.” Cheng paragraph 0033)
Regarding claim 15, modified Muraoka with Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Muraoka fails to teach the following:
The process of claim 12, wherein said solvent-free process is carried out by depositing the electrode formulation on the metal substrate by a process selected from the following processes: pneumatic spraying, electrostatic spraying, dipping in a fluidized powder bed, dusting, electrostatic transfer, deposition with rotary brushes, deposition with rotary metering rolls, and calendering.
However, Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 15 that are not found in Muraoka:
The process of claim 12, wherein said solvent-free process is carried out by depositing the electrode formulation on the metal substrate by a process selected from the following processes: pneumatic spraying, electrostatic spraying, dipping in a fluidized powder bed, dusting, electrostatic transfer, deposition with rotary brushes, deposition with rotary metering rolls, and calendering.(“Once sufficiently mixed, with each component relatively uniformly dispersed through the mixture, the mixture can be moved to a spray gun, such as through application of an air supply. The mixture may be applied through more than one spray gun. Once the mixture is in the electrostatic spray gun, a charge is applied to the mixture,” Cheng paragraph 0033)
Regarding claim 16, modified Muraoka with Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Muraoka fails to teach the following:
The process of claim 12 wherein said solvent-free process is carried out in two steps: a first step which comprises producing a self-supporting film from the electrode formulation, and a second step in which the self-supporting film is assembled with the metal substrate.
However, Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Muraoka:
The process of claim 12 wherein said solvent-free process is carried out in two steps: a first step which comprises producing a self-supporting film from the electrode formulation, and a second step in which the self-supporting film is assembled with the metal substrate. (“The mixture may be applied to a surface of a mold. The mixture may be deposited for sufficient time to achieve a desired electrode thickness, such as between 10 to 500 micrometers. Because multiple sprayed guns can be used simultaneously, the production line speed can be multiplied by using several spray guns. The mixture may be applied to a gradient, such that an electrode with varying thickness is achieved. Following electrostatic deposition, the applied mixture may be calendered and further processed to a desired size and/or shape and then incorporated as an electrode within a battery system.” Cheng paragraph 0030. This paragraph teaches the deposition of a film having a desired thickness, and then further calendaring the film in order to fully finish the electrode production, i.e., assembling it with the metal substrate. According to page 11 lines 4-10 of the instant specification, calendaring is used as a method of assembling the self-supporting film to the metal substrate.)
Regarding claim 17, modified Muraoka with Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 12, as shown above. Muraoka fails to teach the following:
The process of claim 12 wherein the consolidation of said electrode is carried out by at least one heat treatment selected from the group of passing through an oven, under an infrared lamp and through a calender with heated rolls.
However, Cheng teaches all of the elements of claim 17 that are not found in Muraoka:
The process of claim 12 wherein the consolidation of said electrode is carried out by at least one heat treatment selected from the group of passing through an oven, under an infrared lamp and through a calender with heated rolls. (“The dry-powder-coated electrodes were transferred to an oven set at 170° C., close to the melting point of PVDF (177° C.) and were heated in air for 1 h.” Cheng paragraph 0069)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka in view of Okae (US 20190103631 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Muraoka teaches the following elements:
A Li-ion battery electrode comprising an active filler for anode or cathode,
an electronically conductive filler
and a fluoropolymer binder,
Muraoka is silent on the following elements of claim 19. Specifically, Muraoka doesn’t teach a binder comprising a fluoropolymer A and B that meet the limitations of claim 19:
characterized in that said binder consists of a mixture consisting of: - a fluoropolymer A which comprises at least one copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) having an HFP content of from 3% to 20% by weight,
and - a fluoropolymer B which comprises at least one VDF homopolymer.
However, Okae teaches all of the elements of claim 19 that are not found in Muraoka. Specifically, Okae teaches a binder comprising a mixture of fluoropolymers that meet the limitations of claim 19. Despite the fact that the binder of Okae is used in a separator, since Muraoka teaches that its binder can be used in an electrode or in a separator (“[the fluoropolymer binder] is used as at least one of the binder for the positive electrode, the binder for the negative electrode, and the polymer for the separator, which is a lithium secondary battery.” Muraoka [0013])”, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the separator binder of Okae could also easily be substituted into an electrode:
a fluoropolymer binder, (“and other than this, the electrolytic solution is mounted in the secondary battery in a state of being held by a polymer compound.” Okae [0005]—the polymer compound of Okae is used as a binding agent in the electrolyte layer/separator)
characterized in that said binder consists of a mixture consisting of: (“The polymer compound includes one or both of a first polymer compound and a second polymer compound.” Okae [0091])
- a fluoropolymer A which comprises at least one copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) having an HFP content of from 3% to 20% by weight, (“The second polymer compound includes a third copolymer including vinylidene fluoride and one or more of hexafluoropropylene, … and a copolymerization amount of one or more of the hexafluoropropylene, … is no less than 15% by weight, In this case, the second polymer compound of Okae functions as fluoropolymer A, and comprises at least one copolymer of VDF and HFP having an HFP content that overlaps the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 15% or more for the weight ratio of (HFP) to VDF overlaps the claimed range of 3-20% for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and - a fluoropolymer B which comprises at least one VDF homopolymer. (“The first polymer compound includes a first homopolymer and one or both of a second homopolymer and a second copolymer.” Okae [0092] “The second homopolymer is a homopolymer containing vinylidene fluoride as a component and is so-called polyvinylidene fluoride.” Okae [0095]. In this case, the first polymer compound of Okae functions as fluoropolymer B, and contains at least one VDF homopolymer.)
Muraoka and Okae are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium secondary batteries containing mixtures of fluoropolymers as a binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binder of Muraoka, which is stated to be usable in an electrode or separator, with the binder composition of Okae, as this would be a simple substitution of one known fluoropolymer binder for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitation of claim 5 which requires fluoropolymer B to consist of vinylidene fluoride homopolymer is not found in the closest discovered prior art. While there is art which teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (see above), and there is art that teaches a combination of VDF-HFP copolymer and VDF homopolymer Okae (US 20190103631 A1), there is not art that teaches the combination of ranges regarding the weight ratio of HFP content between two fluoropolymers and additionally the weight ratio of the fluoropolymers themselves, that also includes specifically a fluoropolymer A with HFP content and a fluoropolymer B that consists of vinylidene fluoride homopolymer. There is also not sufficient motivation to combine references to meet the claimed limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 5 is considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752