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 .
The pending claims are claims 1-20.
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 15, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshima et al., US 20190260075.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshima et al., teaches a modified binder (0096; 0107) for use in an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (0103; 0105), the modified binder comprising: one or more agglomerates of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (0103) nanoparticles, each of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) nanoparticles comprising a polytetratluoroethylene (PTFE) core (0115) and a polymeric shell (0115; 0141; 0143) disposed on exposed surfaces of the core (0115).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the polymeric shell comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene oxide (PEO) (0161), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVdF ) (0061), polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (0061; 0258), polymethacrylonitrile (PMAN) (0061), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (0061), derivatives and co-polymers, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the polymeric shell further comprises greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a humidity tolerant lithium salt (0007; 0051; 0104; 0269).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the humidity tolerant lithium salt (0123) is selected from the group consisting of: lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) (0123), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6) (0123), lithium perchlorate (0123), lithium trifluoromethyl sulfonate (0123), and combinations thereof (0123).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshima et al., teaches electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrochemical cell comprising: a first electrode comprising a positive electroactive material; a second electrode comprising a negative electroactive material and a modified binder comprising one or more agglomerates of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) nanoparticles (0103; 0115), each of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) nanoparticles (0103; 0115), comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) core and a polymeric shell disposed on exposed surfaces of the core (0103; 0115); and a separating layer disposed between the first and second electrodes (0225).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the polymeric shell comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene oxide (PEO) (0161), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVdF ) (0061), polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (0061; 0258), polymethacrylonitrile (PMAN) (0061), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (0061), derivatives and co-polymers, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the first electrode also comprises the modified binder (0096; 0106).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshima et al., teaches method for forming a modified binder for use in electrochemical cell (0044-0045) that cycles lithium ions (0055-0056), the method comprising: contacting a plurality of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (0103) nanoparticles and a polymeric precursor (0061); and polymerizing the polymeric precursor to form a polymeric shell on exposed surfaces (0128) of at least a portion of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) nanoparticles (0103; 0115).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the polymeric melt further comprises greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a humidity tolerable lithium salt (0007; 0021; 0026) selected from the group consisting of: lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (0123), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiN(FSO2)2) (LiFSI) (0123), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) (0123), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6) (0123), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4) (0123), lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide (LiBETI) (0123), lithium trifluoromethyl sulfonate (LiTfO) (0123), and combinations thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 10-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshima et al., US 20190260075.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) core (0103; 0115; 0219).
Yoshima does not teach a first particle size greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 500 nanometers, the polymeric shell has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 1,000 nanometers, and each of the one or more agglomerates having an average size greater than or equal to about 100 micrometers to less than or equal to about 1,000 micrometers.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshima does not teach wherein the polymeric shell is a continuous coating covering greater than or equal to about 98 % of the total exposed surface area of the core.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshima does not teach wherein the polymeric shell is a discontinuous coating covering less than or equal to about 50 % of the total exposed surface area of the core.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshima et al., teaches lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (0123), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiN(FSO2)2) (LiFSI) (0123), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) (0123), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6) (0123), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4) (0123), lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide (LiBETI) (0123), lithium trifluoromethyl sulfonate (LiTfO) (0123), and combinations thereof.
Yoshima does not teach wherein the polymeric shell further comprises greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a humidity tolerant lithium salt selected from the group.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshima et al., does not teach wherein the polymeric shell is a continuous coating covering greater than or equal to about 98 % of the total exposed surface area of the binder material core.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshima et al., does not teach wherein the polymeric shell is a discontinuous coating covering less than or equal to about 50 % of the total exposed surface area of the binder material core.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshima et al., teaches further comprising selecting from the group consisting of: poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) (0103; 0115), cellulose (0119), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (0115), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) (0115), polyethylene oxide (PEO) (0061), polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (0061), and combinations thereof.
Yoshima does not teach greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an unmodified binder.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshima does not teach wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) core has a first particle size greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 500 nanometers, the polymeric shell has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 1,000 nanometers, and each of the one or more agglomerates having an average size greater than or equal to about 100 micrometers to less than or equal to about 1,000 micrometers.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshima et al., does not teach wherein the polymeric precursor comprises: greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 30 wt.% of a polymer comprising monomers selected from acrylonitrile (AN), methacrylonitrile (MAN) (0061), methyl methacrylate (MMA) (0061), corresponding oligomers and co-polymers, and combinations thereof; greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 3.0 wt.% of an initiator selected from the group consisting of: di(4-tert- butylcyclohexyl)peroxydicarbonate, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), azodicyandiamide (ANBI), peroxide with a reducing agent, benzophenone, 1-[4-(2-hydroxyethoxyl)- phenyl]-2-hydroxy-methyl propanol, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl propanone, 2,4,6- trimethylphenol-diphenyl phosphine oxide, and combinations thereof; and greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 98 wt.% of a solvent selected from the group consisting of: ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), propylene carbonate (PC), acetonitrile (CAN), methyl alcohol (MA), gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), and combinations thereof.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshima et al., teaches selected from the group consisting of: lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (0123), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiN(FSO2)2) (LiFSI) (0123), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) (0123), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6) (0123), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4) (0123), lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide (LiBETI) (0123), lithium trifluoromethyl sulfonate (LiTfO) (0123), and combinations thereof.
Yoshima et al., does not teach wherein the polymeric precursor further comprises greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a humidity tolerable lithium salt.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshima et al., teaches wherein the polymeric precursor is a polymeric melt having a melting temperature less than or equal to about 327 °C (0032) and comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene oxide (PEO) (0061), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVdF) (0061), polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (0061), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (0061), derivatives and co-polymers, and combinations thereof.
Yoshima does not teach the polymerizing comprising cooling the polymeric melt to greater than or equal to about 20 °C to less than or equal to about 30 C.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Yoshima provides no further description of the noted “core-shell binding material” and is otherwise completely silent with regard to a core-shell structure.”
However, Yoshima is not “completely silent” with regard to a core-shell structure. Yoshima teaches a “core-shell binding material” (0115) and teaches a “shell” in paragraph (0141) and twice in paragraph (0143). Since the electrode structure in Yoshima has a shell/coating, it would also have a core, as seen in paragraph (0115).
Applicant argues that “Yoshima is silent with regard to polyethylene oxide or any other polymer.”
However, Yoshima teaches polyethylene oxide (0061) and other polymers such as PVDF, polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (0061).
Applicant argues that “there is no suggestion that one of the named binding materials forms a coating or shell around another one of the named binding materials”.
However, the coating or shell would be the outermost layer, therefore the structure has a shell/coating and has a core within the shell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights