Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on July 1st, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently, claims 1 and 14 are amended, resulting in claims 1-18 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on July 1st, 2026 have been received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005198815 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method of preparing a positive electrode slurry (paste) (Abstract), the method comprising: preparing a first mixture (paste A) comprising a positive electrode active material; preparing a second mixture (paste B) comprising a conductive material and a dispersing material; and mixing the first mixture and the second mixture to form the positive electrode slurry (paste C) (Paragraph 0012).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach the first mixture comprising an acid additive, wherein the acid additive is an acidic material. However, Suzuki teaches the first mixture (paste A) comprising a first binder A (Paragraph 0012) which may be modified polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Paragraph 0043). Suzuki teaches the modified PVDF includes PVDF analogs comprising units such as monochlorotrifluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene, or maleic acid (Paragraph 0044).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select maleic acid from the finite lists of possible combinations for units which modify the PVDF binder to arrive at the acid additive of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a positive electrode slurry, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Maleic acid is known in the art to be an acidic material, therefore the acidic additive of PVDF modified by maleic acid according to the teachings of Suzuki described above is considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of an acid additive that is an acidic material.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the claimed method as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not expressly teach the phase angle of the first mixture is 45º to 90º when no shear stress is applied.
It is reasonable to presume that the phase angle of the first mixture is inherent to Suzuki. Support for said presumption is found in that the first mixture of Suzuki (paste A) comprises the same constituents as the instant first mixture, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, notably a positive electrode active material (Paragraph 0012) which is a lithium metal oxide (Paragraph 0021) and an acid additive which is maleic acid (Paragraphs 0043-0044).
Suzuki teaches compounds of the form of a lithium metal oxide in which the metal may be cobalt, nickel, and or manganese (Paragraph 0040) which are examples of metals in the lithium metal oxide positive electrode active material given in the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0026).
Further, the instant specification discloses that the first mixture may also comprise a binder and a first solvent (Paragraph 0044). The instant disclosure teaches the binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Paragraph 0029), which the primary reference Suzuki also teaches PVDF as a binder A in the first mixture paste A (Paragraph 0015). The instant disclosure teaches the first solvent may be N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) (Paragraph 0051) which the primary reference Suzuki also teaches NMP as a suitable solvent for the dissolution of the binder A, PVDF as described above (Paragraph 00068)
Therefore the first mixture is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the claimed method as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not expressly teach a phase angle of the positive electrode slurry is 10° to 45° when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds under a frequency environment of 1 Hz.
It is reasonable to presume that the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds under a frequency environment of 1 Hz is inherent to Suzuki. Support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry by separately preparing first mixture (step i, paste A) and a second mixture (step ii, paste B) before combining the mixed first and mixed second mixtures (step iii) into a positive electrode slurry (paste C) (Paragraph 0012). Further support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the components of the first and second mixtures of Suzuki being identical to those of the instant application.
As discussed above, the first mixture of Suzuki (paste A) comprises the same constituents as the instant first mixture, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, notably a positive electrode active material (Paragraph 0012) which is a lithium metal oxide (Paragraph 0021) and an acid additive which is maleic acid (Paragraphs 0043-0044).
Suzuki teaches compounds of the form of a lithium metal oxide in which the metal may be cobalt, nickel, and or manganese (Paragraph 0040) which are examples of metals in the lithium metal oxide positive electrode active material given in the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0026).
Further, the instant specification discloses that the first mixture may also comprise a binder and a first solvent (Paragraph 0044). The instant disclosure teaches the binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Paragraph 0029), which the primary reference Suzuki also teaches PVDF as a binder A in the first mixture paste A (Paragraph 0015). The instant disclosure teaches the first solvent may be N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) (Paragraph 0051) which the primary reference Suzuki also teaches NMP as a suitable solvent for the dissolution of the binder A, PVDF as described above (Paragraph 0068)
As discussed above, the second mixture of Suzuki (paste B) comprises the same constituents as the instant second mixture, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, notably a conductive material and a dispersing material (Paragraph 0012).
The instant application discloses that the conductive material may be carbon black and H-NBR is the corresponding dispersing material (Paragraph 0063). The primary reference teaches the conductive material of the second mixture (paste B) is carbon black (Paragraph 0048), and may contain hydrogenated nitrile rubber (Paragraph 0100)
Further, the instant specification discloses that the second mixture may also comprise second solvent (Paragraph 0054). The instant disclosure teaches the second solvent may be N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) (Paragraph 0056) which the primary reference Suzuki also teaches NMP as a suitable solvent for the dissolution of the binder B, a hydrogenated nitrile rubber as described above (Paragraph 0056).
Therefore the positive electrode slurry is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the claimed method as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not expressly teach a phase angle of the positive electrode slurry is 10° to 30° when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds under a frequency environment of 1 Hz.
It is reasonable to presume that the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds under a frequency environment of 1 Hz is inherent to Suzuki. Support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry by separately preparing first mixture (step i, paste A) and a second mixture (step ii, paste B) before combining the mixed first and mixed second mixtures (step iii) into a positive electrode slurry (paste C) (Paragraph 0012). Further support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the components of the first and second mixtures of Suzuki being identical to those of the instant application. See above rejection of claim 3 for further details outlining the components of the first and second mixture shared between the slurry of the instant application and of Suzuki.
Therefore the positive electrode slurry is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki teaches the second mixture (paste B) comprising a second binder B (Paragraph 0012). Suzuki teaches the Example 1 wherein the binder B is comprising of a hydrogenated nitrile rubber (Paragraph 0100). Thus, the binder B of Suzuki is comprised of the same material as the dispersing material of the instant claim, thus they are considered equivalent and Suzuki meets the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the conductive material comprises carbon black (Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Suzuki teaches the second mixture (paste B) comprising a second binder B (Paragraph 0012). Suzuki teaches the Example 1 wherein the binder B is comprising of a hydrogenated nitrile rubber (Paragraph 0100). Thus, the binder B of Suzuki is comprised of the same material as the dispersing material of the instant claim, thus they are considered equivalent and Suzuki meets the limitations of the instant claim.
Suzuki teaches the claimed method as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not expressly teach a phase angle of the positive electrode slurry is 35° to 45° when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds.
It is reasonable to presume that the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds under a frequency environment of 1 Hz is inherent to Suzuki. Support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry by separately preparing first mixture (step i, paste A) and a second mixture (step ii, paste B) before combining the mixed first and mixed second mixtures (step iii) into a positive electrode slurry (paste C) (Paragraph 0012). Further support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the components of the first and second mixtures of Suzuki being identical to those of the instant application. See above rejection of claim 3 for further details outlining the components of the first and second mixture shared between the slurry of the instant application and of Suzuki.
Therefore the positive electrode slurry is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki teaches the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide (Paragraph 0021). Suzuki teaches the lithium transition metal oxide represented by the Formula LiMO2 where M represents as least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, and Mn (Paragraph 0040).
When M=Co, Suzuki teaches the positive electrode active material comprises lithium cobalt oxide.
When M=Ni, Suzuki teaches the positive electrode active material comprises lithium nickel oxide.
When M=Mn, Suzuki teaches the positive electrode active material comprises lithium manganese oxide.
When M=Ni and Mn, Suzuki teaches the positive electrode active material comprises lithium nickel manganese oxide.
When M=Ni, Co, and Mn, Suzuki teaches the positive electrode active material comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide.
Thus, when M is Ni, Co, and or Mn, Suzuki teaches the positive electrode active material comprises one of lithium manganese oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the acid additive comprises maleic acid (Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Suzuki teaches the first mixture comprises a binder A in the first mixture which was PVDF modified by maleic acid, according to the teachings of Suzuki (Paragraphs 0042-0043).
However, Suzuki teaches the binder A may be used in a combination of two or more of the binders including polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), modified PVDF, other fluorocarbon resins comprising vinylidene fluoride units, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and the like (Paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to have selected and combined the embodiments of Suzuki in which the binders of the first mixture are used in combination, specifically where PVDF and modified PVDF are selected from the finite lists of possible combinations for binder A of Suzuki to arrive at the composition of the first mixture of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results in a positive electrode of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Therefore, Suzuki teaches the first mixture further comprises a binder (binder A) (Paragraph 0012), that is polyvinylidene fluoride (Paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches a method of preparing a positive electrode slurry (paste) (Abstract), the method comprising: preparing a first mixture (paste A) comprising a positive electrode active material; preparing a second mixture (paste B) comprising a conductive material and a dispersing material; and mixing the first mixture and the second mixture to form the positive electrode slurry (paste C) (Paragraph 0012).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Suzuki teaches the first mixture (paste A) comprising a first binder A (Paragraph 0012) which may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Paragraph 0043) modified by maleic acid (Paragraph 0044). Maleic acid is known in the art to be an acidic material, therefore the Binder A of PVDF modified by maleic acid taught by Suzuki is considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of the acid additive that is an acidic material
Suzuki teaches the claimed method as discussed above with respect to claim 14, but does not expressly teach a phase angle of the positive electrode slurry is 3° to 45° when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds under a frequency environment of 1 Hz.
It is reasonable to presume that the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry when a shear stress having a shear rate of 500 sec-1 is provided for 300 seconds under a frequency environment of 1 Hz is inherent to Suzuki. Support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry by separately preparing first mixture (step i, paste A) and a second mixture (step ii, paste B) before combining the mixed first and mixed second mixtures (step iii) into a positive electrode slurry (paste C) (Paragraph 0012). Further support for said presumption is found in that Suzuki teaches the components of the first and second mixtures of Suzuki being identical to those of the instant application. See above rejection of claim 3 for further details outlining the components of the first and second mixture shared between the slurry of the instant application and of Suzuki.
Therefore the positive electrode slurry is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 14, the conductive material comprises carbon black (Paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki teaches a positive electrode slurry prepared according to the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry of claim 1 (Paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki teaches a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 0020) comprising: a positive electrode prepared using the positive electrode slurry (paste) of claim 17; and a negative electrode (Paragraph 0012) comprising a negative electrode active material layer (Paragraph 0021).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16-18 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230050935A1).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki is silent as to the phase angle of the first mixture being 45° to 90° when no shear stress is applied. If it is found that the properties of claim 2 are not inherent, the following rejection holds.
However, Lee discloses a slurry composition for a positive electrode of a battery wherein the phase angle at 1 Hz is 50º or more (Abstract). Lee teaches that by adjusting the ratio of the average particle diameter between the positive electrode active material and the positive electrode slurry, the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry may be kept within a certain range to obtain excellent flowability (Paragraph 0034). Lee teaches that in general, as the phase angle of the fluid is increased, the cohesiveness and flowability of the fluid are improved (Paragraph 0127). Further, Lee teaches that if the phase angle of the positive electrode slurry exceeds 70º, the slurry may undesirably flow down from the substrate during coating (Paragraph 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry of Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Lee in which the phase angle of the first mixture is 50º of more. Doing so would advantageously result in excellent flowability of the slurry, as recognized by Lee. The phase angle of Suzuki in view of Lee overlaps the instant claimed range of phase angle of the first mixture. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Further, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the phase angle (by adjusting the ratio of the average particle diameter between the positive electrode active material and the positive electrode slurry according to Lee) of the first mixture, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize phase angle of the first mixture to be within the claimed ranges of instant claim 2 in order to achieve the desirable flowability and cohesiveness of the slurry, as taught by Suzuki in view of Lee.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16-18 above, and further in view of Du (Non-Patent Literature “Three-Dimensional Conductive Network Formed by Carbon Nanotubes in Aqueous Processes NMC Electrode”).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki does not teach the conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes.
However, Du teaches lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, one of the positive electrode active materials listed in the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0026), as a cathode material which also includes carbon nanotubes as a conductive additive (Abstract). Du teaches the morphology of carbon nanotubes results in their even dispersion across the electrode, improving conductivity, rate performance, and cycling ability compared to carbon black (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive material of Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Du in which the carbon black of Suzuki is replaced by carbon nanotubes. Doing so would advantageously result in improved conductivity, rate performance, and cycling ability, as recognized by Du.
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 14.
Suzuki teaches the second mixture (paste B) comprising a second binder B (Paragraph 0012). Suzuki teaches the Example 1 wherein the binder B is comprising of a hydrogenated nitrile rubber (Paragraph 0100). Thus, the binder B of Suzuki is comprised of the same material as the dispersing material of the instant claim, thus they are considered equivalent and Suzuki meets the limitations of the instant claim.
Suzuki does not teach the conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes.
However, Du teaches lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, one of the positive electrode active materials listed in the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0026), as a cathode material which also includes carbon nanotubes as a conductive additive (Abstract). Du teaches the morphology of carbon nanotubes results in their even dispersion across the electrode, improving conductivity, rate performance, and cycling ability compared to carbon black (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive material of Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Du in which the carbon black of Suzuki is replaced by carbon nanotubes. Doing so would advantageously result in improved conductivity, rate performance, and cycling ability, as recognized by Du.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16-18 above, and further in view of Ono (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180198113 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki does not teach the method further comprising transferring the positive electrode slurry, wherein the transferring of the positive electrode slurry comprises passing the positive electrode slurry through a filter member.
However, Ono teaches a battery electrode slurry distributing method (Paragraph 0001), which includes a step in which the positive electrode slurry is subjected to filtering to remove impurities, such as aggregated clusters that have not been dispersed (Paragraph 0118). Ono teaches the filtering to improve the quality of the positive electrode slurry through the removal of impurities (Paragraph 0144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry of Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Ono in which the positive electrode slurry is passed through a filter in a transferring step. Doing so would advantageously result in improved quality of the positive electrode slurry through the removal of impurities, as recognized by Ono.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16-18 above, and further in view of Tanaka (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170110734 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches the method as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Suzuki is silent as to the solid content of the positive electrode slurry being 70% to 80%.
However, Tanaka discloses a slurry for a positive electrode for lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material, a binding material, a conductive material, and an organic solvent (Abstract). Tanaka teaches the solid content concentration of the slurry for the positive electrode is preferably at least 75 mass %, more preferably at least 76 mass %, and particularly preferably at least 77 mass %, and is preferably no greater than 82 mass %, more preferably no greater than 81 mass %, and particularly preferably no greater than 80 mass % (Paragraph 0133). Tanaka teaches that when the solid content of the slurry for the positive electrode is within the range, the slurry possesses high dispersion stability, thus the voltage cycle characteristics and output characteristics of the lithium ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode can be improved (Paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of preparing a positive electrode slurry of Suzuki to incorporate the teachings of Tanaka in which the solid content of the positive electrode slurry is between 75 mass % to 82 mass %. Doing so would advantageously result in high dispersion stability of the slurry, which results in favorable voltage cycle characteristics and output characteristics of the lithium ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode, as recognized by Tanaka.
The range of the solid content of the positive electrode slurry of Suzuki modified by Tanaka substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of slurry solid content in the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Suzuki in view of Tanaka because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments filed July 1st, 2026, applicant argues the amended limitations of claim 1 require the acid additive to be an acidic material. Applicant argues that acidic material is capable of reacting with hydroxide ions, thereby preventing gelation that may otherwise occur due to the presence of hydroxide ions in the first mixture.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as described in the disclosure of Suzuki and as written in the rejection of claims 1 and 14 above, Suzuki teaches that the binder polyvinylidene fluoride can be modified to include maleic acid units. As maleic acid is an acidic material, the unit of maleic acid that is incorporated into PVDF is the acidic additive and is an acidic material, which is consistent with the instant specification which states that the acid additive may include maleic acid (Paragraph 0046). The Examiner presents that as written, the instant claim does not require a specific concentration of an acid additive nor is there any evidence in Suzuki or on the record which would preclude the portion of the polyvinylidene fluoride which contains at least one maleic acid unit from exhibiting acidic properties, such as being capable of reacting with hydroxide ions. As such, Suzuki teaches the acid additive is an acidic material in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
In the arguments filed July 1st, 2026, applicant argues that the modified PVDF of Suzuki is not disclosed by Suzuki to be acidic. Applicant argues that Suzuki’s binder A, of which modified PVDF is merely one example, appears to be intended as a conventional binder.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that because Suzuki teaches the PVDF may be modified to incorporate at least one maleic acid unit, the ordinary artisan would understand that at least a portion of the PVDF has acidic properties. Applicant seems to be arguing that Suzuki’s disclosure appearing to describe the modified PVDF functioning as a binder would discount it being considered an acid additive in the instant claimed limitations, to which the Examiner presents that such an argument seems to be directed toward what the modified PVDF does, rather than what it is. However, the instant product claim requires only the first mixture to comprise an acid additive, the acid additive is an acidic material. Therefore, there is nothing in the claim as written or the disclosure of Suzuki to prevent the maleic acid-modified PVDF from being considered the acid additive of the instant claim.
In the arguments filed July 1st, 2026, applicant argues that the Binder A of Suzuki exhibits higher affinity for the electrolyte than binder B. Applicant provides that this is presumably because even if the modified PVDF includes some maleic acid units, the compound itself would not exhibit acidic properties, and thus the effect achieved by the present invention could not have been contemplated.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as described in the disclosure of Suzuki and as written in the rejection of claims 1 and 14 above, Suzuki teaches that the binder polyvinylidene fluoride can be modified to include maleic acid units. Therefore, Suzuki teaches at least of portion of the polyvinylidene fluoride which contains at least one maleic acid unit. Thus, the Examiner presents that at least some portion of the compound will exhibit acidic properties, owing to the presence of at least one acid-containing unit in the compound.
Further, the Examiner presents that applicant’s allegations that Binder A of Suzuki exhibiting higher affinity for the electrolyte than Binder B due to the Binder A not exhibiting acidic properties is merely speculation, as applicant has not provided where evidence to support such a conclusion is supported by the disclosure of Suzuki. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
In the arguments filed July 1st, 2026, applicant argues the acid additive of the present invention can readily form bonds with the dispersing material, such as H-NBR. Applicant provides that in contrast to this, Suzuki discloses the binder A exhibits a lower affinity for binder B, further identifying H-NBR as an example of binder B.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the instant claim as written does not include any limitations directed toward the affinity between the acid additive and the dispersing material. Further, while Suzuki may disclose varying degrees of affinity between the binders A and B, this does not preclude at least some portion of the acid additive of Suzuki from forming a bond with the dispersing material, such as H-NBR. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that there is no evidence in the prior art or on the record that would preclude the PVDF modified by at least one unit of maleic acid of Suzuki from being considered to meet the instant claimed limitation of the acid additive comprising an acidic material.
In the arguments filed July 1st, 2026, applicant argues that because of the deficiencies of the prior art with respect to claim 1, the dependent claims 2, 4, 9-10 and 15 are allowable.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the arguments are not convincing for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Kawamura (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160351905 A1) discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material and an additive for suppressing gelation, including maleic acid (Abstract, Paragraph 0022).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights