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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 4 and 7 have been canceled, Claims 1 and 9 have been amended and Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-11 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection of Claim 7 is withdrawn as Claim 7 has been canceled in the amendment file 10/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claim 9 is withdrawn as Claim 9 has been amended in the amendment file 10/27/2025.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeou et al. (US 20150083975 A1), hereinafter “Yeou”. Yeou et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode slurry materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Yeou et al. discloses a slurry composition for a secondary battery electrode (Paragraph [0110]), the composition comprising a carbon-based conductive material such as carbon black (Yeou, Example 1, Paragraph [0081]), a fluorine-based dispersant (a poly(vinylidene fluoride) material specifically chosen for its properties of dispersibility) included in the slurry composition (Yeou, Paragraph [0007, 0013]), a rubber-based dispersant (a acrylonitrile-butadiene hydride material specifically chosen for its properties of dispersibility) included in the composition (Yeou, Paragraph [0008, 0112]), and an organic solvent (Yeou, Paragraph [0060]).
Yeou et al. discloses a slurry composition comprising a range of rubber based dispersant of 5-40 wt% (Yeou, [0064]), and a range of fluorine based dispersant of 3-27 wt% (Yeou, [0035]), which overlaps the claimed range as well as a specific example where the weight ratio of a rubber-based dispersant and a fluorine-based dispersant is 1:1 (Yeou, Example 7), which necessarily discloses a slurry composition comprising a fluorine based dispersant and a rubber based dispersant wherein a weight ratio of a rubber based dispersant and a fluorine based dispersant falls within the claimed range and is within the realm of routine optimization for the skilled artisan based on the desired results.
Further, Yeou et al. discloses a specific example wherein the fluorine-based dispersant has an average molecular weight of 1,000,000 g/mol (Yeou, Example 1), which falls within the claimed range. Yeou et al. also discloses wherein the weight average molecular weight of the non-fluorine binder (rubber-based dispersant) ranges from 100,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol (Yeou, Paragraph [0056]), which overlaps the claimed range and that when the weight average molecular weights of the dispersants are within the ranges above, electrode flexibility and dispersibility of a conducting agent may be improved (Yeou, Paragraph [0056]).
In addition, Yeou et al. discloses a slurry composition comprising fluorine based and rubber based dispersants wherein the slurry comprises an active material, conductive agent, and binder composition containing the dispersants. Given the ratios and materials disclosed in the slurry compositions of example 1 and example 7 the wt% of the fluorine based dispersant can be calculated based on the total weight of the slurry composition which is equal to 0.75% in example 7 and 0.9% in example 1, and the wt% of the rubber-based dispersant is equal to 0.10-0.25 (Yeou, Examples 1-7), which overlaps the claimed ranges and amounts to nothing more than a result-effective variable to be optimized by the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
In regard to Claims 2-3, Yeou et al discloses the composition of claim 1. Yeou et al. discloses a fluorine based dispersant of SOLEF 6020 and SOLEF 5130 (Yeou, Paragraph [0113-0114]) which are vinylidene fluoride homopolymers and wherein SOLEF 5130 is a modified PVDF containing a carboxylic group. Yeou et al also discloses a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and a polar functional monomer with either HFP or CTFE (Yeou, Paragraph [0032-0033]) and fall within a vinylidene fluoride- hexafluoropropylene copolymer or a vinylidene fluoride- chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer, all of which achieve the benefit of increased dispersibility (Yeou, Paragraphs [0006-0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a fluorine based dispersant as taught in Yeou, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the results taught in Yeou et al. and as doing so would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Yeou et al. discloses the composition of claim 1. Yeou et al. discloses a rubber-based dispersant of hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HNBR) used in a weight % of 0.10-0.25 based on the given ratios (Yeou, Examples 1-7) which overlaps the claimed range of .01-10% and by definition comprises a repeating unit derived from an acrylonitrile-based monomer and an olefin-based monomer, and comprises one or more compounds containing one or both of repeating units represented by Formula 1 and Formula 2 wherein, in Formulae 1 and 2, m and n are mole fractions of each repeating unit, m + n = 1, and m is in a range of 0.1 to 0.9. Further, the hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber disclosed in Yeou is also listed as a rubber based dispersant in the original specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide HNBR as a rubber based dispersant as taught in Yeou et al. as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and would be nothing more than the use of known material to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claims 8-9, Yeou et al. discloses the composition of claim 1. Yeou et al. discloses a specific example where the carbon-based conductive material is carbon black dispersed in an organic solvent of N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP), which falls within the claimed groups (Yeou Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide carbon black as a conducting agent and NMP as an organic solvent, as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claims 10-11, Yeou et al. discloses the composition of claim 1. Yeou et al. also discloses a secondary battery comprising: and electrode manufactured using the slurry composition of claim 1, said electrode is a cathode and also includes an anode and a separator (Yeou, Example 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a cathode comprising the slurry according to claim 1 to a secondary battery, as doing so would be obvious to the skilled artisan and would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a pre-dispersion slurry) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The current independent claim 1 describes a slurry composition wherein no language is preventing that composition from including active material, binders or other such materials in the slurry. In addition, Yeou teaches the selection of the materials including the rubber based and fluorine based binders are explicitly done so to improve dispersibility, including dispersibility of the conductive material and as such, function equivalently to dispersants as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above.
Further, applicants’ arguments that the weight ratio and wt % of the rubber based dispersant and fluorine based dispersant are not within the ranges of Yeou et al. are not persuasive as current independent claim 1 requires a slurry composition comprising a conductive carbon material, a fluorine based dispersant and a rubber based dispersant, which by definition Yeou provides, albeit Yeou’s slurry also comprises an active material which changes the total wt % of the slurry composition and as stated in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above, provides a slurry composition wherein the wt% of the fluorine and rubber based dispersants are within the claimed range.
Claim 1 also requires a weight ratio within a certain range of a rubber based dispersant and a fluorine based dispersant, which is also by definition given in Yeou and overlaps the claimed range as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above. If applicant intends to claim the weight ratio of a total amount of rubber based dispersant and a total amount of fluorine based dispersant in the slurry composition then applicant may do so by amending independent claim 1, however the current claim language does not make such a requirement and allows for each of the weight ratios of Yeou’s rubber based dispersant to the first fluorine based dispersant or to the second fluorine based dispersant or to both fluorine based dispersants combined to meet the limitation of a slurry composition wherein a weight ratio of the rubber-based dispersant and the fluorine-based dispersant is in a range of about 1:0.1 to about 1:1.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ahn et al. (US 20200028174 A1), Ahn et al. discloses a positive electrode active material pre-dispersion composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725