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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 5-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 13-19 have been added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on June 12th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of March 12th, 2026
The 102 rejections over Yasuhiro (JP 2020095812 A) are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on pages 7-10 that Yasuhiro does not disclose that the claimed second binder polymer that is impregnated between the cracks is ejected from an electrolyte that previously dissolved said binder polymer. The Examiner agrees that Yasuhiro does not explicitly disclose this. However, even though the Applicant’s activation step creates cracks, the current claimed language does not overcome Yasuhiro. Some of the cracks created may still have the capacity to contain Yasuhiro’s second binder polymer (as admitted by the Applicant in page 8, second paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim includes functional limitations of the second binder polymer and the electrolyte. These functions are inherently present due to the structural limitations present in claim 1. Claim 1 states that second binder polymer is dissolved in an electrolyte while claim 13 states that the electrolyte is configured to dissolve a second binder polymer. Claim 1 states that the second binder polymer is ejected from the electrolyte while claim 13 states that the second binder polymer is configured to be ejected from the electrolyte. Claim 15 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 13. The Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuhiro (JP 2020095812 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 18, Yasuhiro teaches a negative electrode comprised of a current collector [00010], an active material layer comprised of silicon (as required by claim 3) particles [00044], a conductive material [00035], As required by claim 4, the electrode further comprises a first binder polymer such as cellulose or styrene-butadiene rubber (as required by claim 18, [00036]. Cracks form in the negative active material after charging/discharging [00045]. A second binder polymer comprised of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) is contained within the negative electrode active material layer [00011] is present and impregnated in and between those cracks. Element 70 corresponds to the active material and element 72 corresponds to the second binder polymer ([00044] – [00046], figures 2b and 2c below).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the limitation of “wherein the second binder polymer is ejected from an electrolyte in which the second binder polymer has been dissolved” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuhiro teaches an example of the molar ratio of PVDF to HFP in the PVDF-HFP copolymer, where “the HFP substitution amount is 11 mol%” [00067]. The molar mass of the PVDF-derived monomer is 64 g/mol and the molar mass of the HFP-derived monomer is 150 g/mol. Assuming a sample of said copolymer comprises 100 mol, there would be 89 mol of PVDF monomers and 11 mol of HFP. 89 mol of the PVDF-derived monomer has a mass of 5696 g and 11 mol of the HFP-derived monomer has a mass of 1650 g. The total mass of the sample would be the sum of those two masses: 7346 g. The weight % of HFP of the sample is equivalent to 1650 g / 7346 g which is equivalent to 22.5%, which is greater than the claimed 20 weight %. Therefore, Yasuhiro’s example anticipates the claimed weight % range of the HFP monomer where the weight % is greater than 20%.
Regarding claim 13, there are no limitations that further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection set forth for claim 1 also suffices as a rejection for claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Yasuhiro discloses an example of their negative electrode where the negative electrode conductive aid is present with at 2 weight% and the first binder polymer is present with at 8 weight% [00067]. These values fall within the claimed weight% ranges of 0.1 weight% - 20 weight%.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuhiro (JP 2020095812 A) as applied to claims 1 and 13, respectively, with evidence provided by Shalu (Development of ion conducting polymer gel electrolyte membranes based on polymer PVdF-HFP, BMIMTFSI ionic liquid and the Li-salt with improved electrical, thermal and structural properties).
Yasuhiro teaches the required binder polymers, but does not teach their melting points. Shalu is analogous art to Yasuhiro because they discuss electrolytes in batteries (Yasuhiro, [00048]; Shalu, abstract). If the second binder polymer, PVDF-HFP, has a melting point above 70 °C, it is expected that it would dissolve in an electrolyte at 70 °C or higher (as required by claim 14). That same polymer, by extension, would be expected to have some degree of solidity and able to connect/bind materials beneath that temperature (in this case, the claimed negative active material as required by claim 15). Shalu’s Table 1 demonstrates that all their different variations of PVdF-HFP have melting temperatures above 70 °C (see the annotated table below).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
1105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (WO 2016/185925 A1) Yasuhiro fails to teach the claimed range of weight% for the HFP monomers in the PVDF-HFP binder polymer. Inoue is analogous art to Yasuhiro because both discuss materials used for batteries (Inoue, title; Yasuhiro, title). Inoue teaches that using a fluorine-containing polymer in an electrode gives benefits of heat resistance and adhesiveness [0019]. Inoue continues to teach that the polymer may contain VdF monomer units as well as HFP units [0017] where the ratio of the VdF monomer unit to the HFP unit may be between 100:0 – 50:50 [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Inoue’s polymer with the weight ratio they teach in Yasuhiro’s negative electrode. Furthermore, this ratio overlaps with the claimed range wherein the HFP content of the second binder polymer is 30% or more. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiro as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2014/0050985 A1). Yasuhiro teaches that the first binder polymer may be cellulose [00037], but fails to explicitly teach that the first binder polymer is carboxymethyl cellulose. Lee is analogous art because both Lee and Yasuhiro discuss batteries (Lee, title; Yasuhiro, title). Lee teaches that carboxymethyl cellulose may be used in an electrode as a binder/thickener [0061]. Lee’s carboxymethyl cellulose is suitable for the intended use of being a binder in Yasuhiro’s electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select carboxymethyl cellulose in Yasuhiro’s electrode with the intended use of being a binder. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okahara (US 2004/0211943 A1) discusses the usage of a PVDF-HFP polymer where the HPF monomers may be present in the polymer by 30% by mass [0022]. This composition may assist with corrosion resistance and adhesiveness [0025].
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights