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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-12 are pending examination in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed has been accepted and considered with the current action.
Claim Interpretation
The previous 112b rejection is being withdrawn, with the interpretation of “solid content” being the weight amount of particular solid material not including the solvent.
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.
Claims 1 – 4 & 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0028174 (Ahn).
Regarding claims 1 & 2, Ahn teaches a positive electrode slurry comprising an active material of lithium iron phosphate, a binder of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), a dispersant and a solvent (Abstract; [0032, 0033, 0040]). The active material can be coated with a carbon material ([0034]).
Ahn is silent to the 1H-NMR measurement of the PVDF. However, the specification is silent to what kind of PVDF is utilized or what if anything has been done to the PVDF to obtain this particular reading. Since there are a finite known kinds of PVDF and they have known properties, then it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try the different kinds and use the claimed PVDF. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and using known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR, MPEP 2141 (III)).
Regarding claim 3, the average particle size (D50) of the active material is less than 2 microns ([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. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claims 4 & 10, as discussed above in the 112 rejection, while it is unclear what makes up the “total solid content”, Ahn teaches that the positive electrode can be made up of 1 -30 wt% conductive material, 1 – 30 wt% binder, about 0.8 – 2 wt% dispersant and the rest active material ([0035, 0039, 0040, 0069-0077]; Tables 1 & 2). So based on the percentages available, the amount of active material would overlap with the claimed amount of 91 to 98 wt% for claim 4 and the 40 to 75 wt% in claim 10, as best as can be determined. Furthermore, it is known in the art to vary the amount of active material in the electrode in order to balance the energy density of the electrode with other factors like conductivity and binding strength offered by the other components that make up the electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 7, the binder is taught to be included in an amount of 1 to 30wt% ([0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05)
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claims 8 & 9, the dispersant is a hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) and included in an amount of 0.1 to 2 wt% ([0035, 0071], Table 1 & 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claims 11 & 12, Ahn teaches the positive electrode active material is for a secondary battery and as such would obviously include a positive current collector, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte. These features are well known in the battery art as being required to make a secondary battery (Abstract).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0028174 (Ahn) in view of US 2015/0104712 (Kerlau).
The teachings of Ahn as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Ahn is silent to the PVDF binder being a homopolymer.
Kerlau teaches a lithium battery electrode where the binder can be a homopolymer ([0141]). Kerlau teaches that the various types of binders are all well-known equivalents and therefore because the products are art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the general PVDF of Ahn for the homopolymer of Kerlau.
Regarding claim 6, Kerlau teaches the average molecular weight should be 200,000 to 3,000,000 g/mol ([0141]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Ahn does not teach a PVDF binder that meets Formula 1. As discussed in the rejection, Ahn does not teach performing a NMR of the PVDF used to find the integrated areas of certain peaks. However, this does not mean that the PVDF used by Ahn does not meet the claimed formula. Furthermore, as stated in the rejection, the use of various PVDFs are well known in the art and it would be obvious to select the PVDFs based on known factors. The instant specification does not provide more indication as to what PVDFs meet Formula 1, other than it maybe being a homopolymer. The use of the homopolymer and non-homopolymer versions of PVDF are well known in the art as equivalent and would be obvious to choose. As rebuttal to applicant’s argument, evidence of the fact that these PVDFs are well known in the art and equivalent to the teachings of Ahn is shown in US 2012/0028117, US 2003/0077516, and KR20000055680.
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.
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 KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 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.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
