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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered. Claim 5 is cancelled and claims 15-17 are added. Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-17 remain pending in the application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano et al. (US 2019/0296359, hereinafter "Asano") in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2019/0123380, hereinafter "Yamamoto") and Takahashi et al. (US 5,415,958, hereinafter "Takahashi").
Regarding claim 1, Asano teaches a binder consisting of a fluorine-containing polymer comprising vinylidene fluoride and tetrafluoroethylene [0029, “The fluorine-containing polymer contains a polymerized unit based on vinylidene fluoride, a polymerized unit based on tetrafluoroethylene”, 0268, “The binder (fluorine-containing polymer)”]. Asano further teaches that the composition of the fluoropolymer comprises a fluoropolymer comprising as least one functional monomer [0031, “The fluorine-containing polymer contains a polymerized unit based on the monomer (2-2). The monomer (2-2) contains a specific functional group”]. Asano also teaches that the solution viscosity of the binder, in NMP with 5 wt% solid content, was measured at room temperature [0267, “A 5 mass % N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) solution of the fluorine-containing polymer was prepared, and the viscosity was measured at 25° C”]. The solution viscosity of the binder taught by Asano ranged from 393 mPa.s to 1393 mPa.s, or 0.393 Pa.s to 1.393 Pa.s, which overlaps the claimed range [Table 1]. 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 MPEP 2144.05 I). While Asano does not specifically teach that the solution viscosity is tested with a Brookfield viscometer, the method in which the solution viscosity is tested does not lend itself to any actual structure within the claim, and absent objective evidence that other methods are not equivalent to those recited, they could also be relied upon as long as the recited viscosity is met. Asano is silent with respect to the binder being used for a “nano-sized lithium phospho-olivine based cathode” as recited by the preamble of claim 1. However, Asano discloses all of the positively recited structure, and is therefore fully capable of being used as a binder for a nano-sized lithium phospho-olivine based cathode, and accordingly meets this intended use claim language. According to the guidance issued by Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020), “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02 II). Asano does not specifically teach the fluoropolymer being a thermoplastic fluoropolymer, nor the weight fraction of functional groups in the thermoplastic fluoropolymer.
Yamamoto teaches analogous art of a binder containing a fluoropolymer composition, including thermoplastic resins (“thermoplastic fluoropolymer”) such as a vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer [0108, “Examples of the binding agent encompass: thermoplastic resins such as polyvinylidene fluoride, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, a tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer”].
The binders of Asano and Yamamoto are both fluoropolymers comprising vinylidene fluoride and tetrafluoroethylene. Furthermore, both the binder of Asano and the binder of Yamamoto function to bind together materials in a battery electrode [Asano 0008, “an electrode mixture for a secondary battery, comprising a mixture containing at least: the binder for a secondary battery”, Yamamoto 0104, “ an active material layer including a positive electrode active material and a binder resin”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the fluoropolymer comprising vinylidene fluoride and tetrafluoroethylene of Asano to be thermoplastic as taught by Yamamoto.
Takahashi teaches analogous art of a vinylidene fluoride copolymer that may be used for a binder [Abstract, “The copolymer is particularly effectively used as a binder for constituting an electrode for a non-aqueous solvent-type secondary battery”]. Takahashi teaches that the copolymer may comprise a functional group such as a carbonyl group or a carboxyl group [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon, col. 2, lines 47-50]. Takahashi teaches that the content of the carbonyl group in the copolymer may be 1×10-5 to 5×10-4 mol/g [col. 2, lines 56-57]. For 1 g of copolymer that would be 1×10-5 to 5×10-4 mol, which could be multiplied by the molar mass of the carbonyl group, 28 g/mol, to get 2.8×10-4 to 0.014 g of carbonyl group in 1 g of the copolymer, or 0.028 weight % to 1.4 weight % of the carbonyl group content based on the weight of the copolymer, which overlaps the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Takahashi teaches that if the amount of the carbonyl group in the copolymer is too low, the copolymer has insufficient adhesion to a metal substrate, but if the amount is too high, the copolymer will have a lower chemical resistance [col. 4 line 65 – col. 5 line 6, “Below 0.1 wt. part, it is impossible to obtain a copolymer showing a sufficient effect of polar group introduction, such as the adhesion to a metal substrate … the addition in excess of 3 wt. parts is liable to provide a copolymer showing a lower chemical resistance. For similar reasons, the resultant vinylidene fluoride copolymer may preferably have a carbonyl group content of 1×10-5 - 5×10-4 mol/g”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binder taught by modified Asano to include a functional group in an amount within the range taught by Takahashi, in order for the binder to show sufficient adhesion to a metal substrate and prevent a decrease in chemical resistance.
Further regarding claim 2, Asano teaches that the fluorine-containing polymer comprises vinylidene fluoride, which is a fluorinated vinylic monomer, as described above [0029]. Asano further teaches that the fluorine-containing polymer may comprise another monomer such as 3-butenoic acid, which has a carboxyl functional group [0037, “Particularly preferred examples of the monomer (2-2) include vinylacetic acid (3-butenoic acid)”].
Further regarding claim 3, Asano teaches that the fluorine-containing polymer comprises vinylidene fluoride and tetrafluoroethylene, as described above [0029].
Further regarding claim 4, Asano teaches that the fluorine-containing polymer comprises vinylidene fluoride in an amount of 50 to 95 mol%, which overlaps the recited range of at least 50 mol% [0020, “The fluorine-containing polymer preferably contains the polymerized unit based on vinylidene fluoride in an amount of 50 to 95 mol %”]. Further, as described above, Asano teaches that the fluorine-containing polymer comprises tetrafluoroethylene [0029].
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (JP 2005310747, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Sakuma") in view of Yamamoto (US 2019/0123380).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma teaches a binder for forming non-aqueous battery electrodes consisting of a vinylidene fluoride polymer (“fluoropolymer composition”) [0001]. Sakuma teaches that the binder is mainly composed of a medium to high molecular weight vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and an ultra-high molecular weight vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) [0008]. Sakuma teaches that the vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) preferably comprises a monomer (“functional monomer”) having at least one adhesive functional group, wherein the fraction of the functional groups is 0.1 to 3 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the monomer constituting the vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) [0013]. Sakuma discloses that the ratio of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) to the total amount of vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) is in the range of 60 to 98% by weight [0007], meaning that the ratio of (B) to the total amount of (A) and (B) is in the range of 2 to 40%. At the low end of the range of the fraction of functional groups and the ratio of (B) to the total amount of (A) and (B), the fraction of functional groups based on the total amount of (A) and (B) would be 0.001 times 2%, or about 0.002% based on the total weight of (A) and (B). At the high end of the range of the fraction of functional groups and the ratio of (B) to the total amount of (A) and (B), the fraction of functional groups based on the total amount of (A) and (B) would be 0.03 times 40%, or about 1.2% based on the total weight of (A) and (B). This overlaps the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Sakuma is silent with respect to the binder being used for a “nano-sized lithium phospho-olivine based cathode” as recited by the preamble of claim 1. However, Sakuma discloses all of the positively recited structure, and is therefore fully capable of being used as a binder for a nano-sized lithium phospho-olivine based cathode, and accordingly meets this intended use claim language. According to the guidance issued by Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020), “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02 II).
Sakuma does not specifically teach the vinylidene fluoride polymer being a thermoplastic vinylidene fluoride polymer.
Yamamoto teaches analogous art of a binder containing a fluoropolymer composition, including thermoplastic resins (“thermoplastic fluoropolymer”) such as polyvinylidene fluoride and a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride [0108, “Examples of the binding agent encompass: thermoplastic resins such as polyvinylidene fluoride, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, a tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer”].
The binders of Sakuma and Yamamoto are both fluoropolymers comprising vinylidene fluoride. Furthermore, both the binder of Sakuma and the binder of Yamamoto function to bind together materials in a battery electrode [Sakuma 0001, “a vinylidene fluoride based polymer binder suitable for forming non-aqueous electrochemical element electrodes, which is stable with non-aqueous electrolytes, has good adhesion to current collector substrates, and simultaneously satisfies processing characteristics during electrode formation”, Yamamoto 0104, “ an active material layer including a positive electrode active material and a binder resin”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the vinylidene fluoride polymer binder of Sakuma to be thermoplastic, as taught by Yamamoto.
Sakuma does not specifically teach the solution viscosity of the binder. However, viscosity is an intrinsic property. Sakuma, as modified by Yamamoto, teaches a binder with a chemical composition identical to the claimed binder. Therefore, the binder taught by Sakuma must have the same solution viscosity in NMP with 5 wt% solid content, between 0.3 Pa.s and 1 Pa.s at 10s-1 as the claimed binder. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable (see MPEP 2112.01(II)).
Further regarding claim 17, Sakuma teaches that the monomer having at least one adhesive functional group such as a carboxyl group may be acrylic acid [0013].
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (JP 2005310747) in view of Yamamoto (US 2019/0123380) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chauveau et al. (US 2018/0076444, hereinafter "Chauveau").
Regarding claim 15, modified Sakuma teaches the binder of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. As described previously, Sakuma teaches that the binder consists of a medium to high molecular weight vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) (“high molecular weight fluoropolymer”) and an ultra-high molecular weight vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) (“functionalized high molecular weight fluoropolymer”) [0008], wherein (B) comprises functional groups [0013]. While Sakuma does describe both (A) and (B) as having a high molecular weight, the instant specification defines the term “high molecular weight fluoropolymer” to mean a fluoropolymer having a having a melt viscosity of greater than or equal to 2300 Pa.s at 232° C under shearing of 100 s−1 [0035 of the published application]. Sakuma is silent regarding a melt viscosity of (A) and (B).
Chauveau teaches analogous art of a binder chosen from a fluoropolymer of high molecular weight and which may carry functional groups [0029]. Chauveau teaches that the fluoropolymers of high molecular weight may include vinylidene fluoride [0030]. Chauveau further discloses that of these high molecular weight fluoropolymers, PVDF with a melt viscosity of greater than or equal to 2000 Pa.s at 232 °C at a shear gradient of 100 s-1 are preferred [0031]. 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 MPEP 2144.05 I). Chauveau defines the term “PVDF” as comprising vinylidene fluoride (VDF) homopolymers or copolymers of VDF and of at least one other comonomer in which the VDF represents at least 50 mol % [0032].
Chauveau teaches that the fluoropolymers disclosed are high-performance and capable of ensuring good cohesion and adhesion properties at a low content in a cathode [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) taught by modified Sakuma to be high molecular weight fluoropolymers by having a melt viscosity at 232 °C at a shear gradient of 100 s-1 within the range disclosed by Chauveau, in order to provide a high-performance binder capable of ensuring good cohesion and adhesion properties at a low content in a cathode.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sakuma teaches the binder of claim 15 as described in the rejection of instant claim 15.
As described previously, Chauveau teaches a binder chosen from a fluoropolymer of high molecular weight, such as vinylidene fluoride (VDF) homopolymers or copolymers of VDF with a melt viscosity of greater than or equal to 2000 Pa.s at 232 °C at a shear gradient of 100 s-1 [0029-0032].
Chauveau teaches that the fluoropolymers disclosed are high-performance and capable of ensuring good cohesion and adhesion properties at a low content in a cathode [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) taught by modified Sakuma to have a melt viscosity at 232 °C at a shear gradient of 100 s-1 within the range disclosed by Chauveau, in order to provide a high-performance binder capable of ensuring good cohesion and adhesion properties at a low content in a cathode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the range of the fraction of functional groups in the thermoplastic of at least 0.01 weight % and less than or equal to 0.2 weight % based on the weight of the fluoropolymer composition demonstrates unexpected results. [Remarks, page 7]. Applicant cites the data as shown in Table 2 of the specification as evidence supporting the allegation that the specific range of the fraction of functional groups claimed demonstrates unexpected results. Applicant states that for examples #1-5, which all have a functional group content within the claimed range, the tan delta value was maintained above 1 after 24 hours, which confirmed that the slurry remained in a liquid-like, processable state, but that for examples #6-9 which had a functional group content above the claimed upper limit, the tan delta value was below 1 after 24 hours indicating that the slurry had gelled and was no longer processable. Applicant alleges that this demonstrates unexpected results for the range of at least 0.01 weight % to less than or equal to 0.2 weight %. Table 2 of the present specification is recreated below:
PNG
media_image1.png
414
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
159
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is respectfully submitted that there are a few deficiencies with respect to applicant’s allegation of a critical range.
Firstly, examples #0-1 and #0-2 have a no functional group content, which is outside the claimed range of at least 0.01 weight % to less than or equal to 0.2 weight %. However, example #0-1 maintains a tan delta value above 1 after 24 hours, and example #0-2 maintains a tan delta value above 1 after 2 hours, indicating that these binders are still processable. Furthermore, the complex viscosity increase of examples #0-1 and #0-2 is within the range displayed by those of examples #1-5, and the peel strength of examples #0-1 and #0-2 is also at or above the reference value [Remarks, pg. 7] of 30 N/m. Therefore, even though no groups are present, examples #0-1 and #0-2 show appreciable results, which does not demonstrate the criticality of the claimed range of at least 0.01 weight % to less than or equal to 0.2 weight %.
Second, examples #6-9 are cited as evidence that a functional group content above the upper limit of 0.2 weight % does not show favorable results. However, a true comparison cannot be made between examples #1-5 and examples #6-9 due to the difference in the composition of the binders. None of the binder compositions used in examples #6-9 is the same as any of the binder compositions used in example #1-5. Therefore, it is unclear whether the difference in results is due to functional group content, or if it is due to the difference in fluoropolymer composition.
Thus, this argument is considered unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights