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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted February 7, 2023, April 27, 2023, September 5, 2023, April 18, 2024, May 19, 2025, and June 10, 2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda et al. WO-2019087652-A1 (US-20200243862-A1 cited in PTO-892 and used as translation) (hereinafter “Hosoda”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hosoda discloses a binder for a battery, comprising a fluorine-containing copolymer (polymer with a VdF unit and polymerized unit based on a monomer copolymerizable with VdF) (see paragraphs [0009], [0134]-[0137] and [0143]), wherein
the fluorine-containing copolymer comprises a repeating unit (a) based on vinylidene fluoride (VdF) and at least one repeating unit (b) (2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene) selected from the group consisting of a repeating unit (b1) represented by a general formula (b1) (see paragraphs [0134]-[0137], [0145]-[0148], and [0192]-[0204]),
and the Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer contains Vdf in an amount of 80 to 98 mol% (see paragraphs [0193]-[0195]). The mol% range disclosed by Hosoda results in a molar ratio of repeating unit (a) (VdF) to repeating unit (b) (2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene) of 98/2 to 80/20, which substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of a molar ratio of the repeating unit (a) to the repeating unit (b), (a)/(b), of 95/5 to 5/95.
Additionally, Hosoda discloses less than 80 mol % or more than 98 mol % of the VdF unit may cause a great change in viscosity of the electrode mixture over time (see paragraph [0193]), and as such, the ratio between repeating unit (a) to repeating unit (b) is a result effective variable. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder for a battery disclosed by Hosoda wherein the molar ratio of the repeating unit (a) to the repeating unit (b), (a)/(b), is in the range 95/5 to 5/95 in order to avoid a great change in viscosity of the electrode mixture over time.
Hosoda further discloses wherein Rf1 is a linear or branched fluorinated alkyl group having 1 carbon atom.
The repeating unit disclosed by Hosoda is a species of the genus general formula (b1) of the claim and therefore anticipates the genus general formula (b1) (see comparison of formulas below). Additionally, 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene of Hosoda is the same as the polymer used in the instant application (see paragraphs [0297]-[0322] and [0334]-[0338] of published instant application) and as such meets the limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene monomer (top) and polymerized unit (bottom)
PNG
media_image3.png
321
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. General formula (b1) of instant application
Regarding Claim 2, Hosoda discloses the binder for a battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Hosoda further discloses the Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer contains Vdf in an amount of 80 to 98 mol% (see paragraphs [0193]-[0195]). The mol% range disclosed by Hosoda results in a molar ratio of repeating unit (a) (VdF) to repeating unit (b) (2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene) of 98/2 to 80/20, which substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of a molar ratio of the repeating unit (a) to the repeating unit (b), (a)/(b), of 87/13 to 20/80.
Additionally, Hosoda discloses less than 80 mol % or more than 98 mol % of the VdF unit may cause a great change in viscosity of the electrode mixture over time (see paragraph [0193]), and as such, the ratio between repeating unit (a) to repeating unit (b) is a result effective variable. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder for a battery disclosed by Hosoda wherein the molar ratio of the repeating unit (a) to the repeating unit (b), (a)/(b), is in the range 87/13 to 20/80 in order to avoid a great change in viscosity of the electrode mixture over time.
Regarding Claim 4, Hosoda discloses the binder for a battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Hosoda discloses the binder may comprise polyvinylidene fluoride as a homopolymer in addition to the Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer (see abstract and paragraphs [0011], [0097], [0134]-[0137], [0145], and [0192]-[0204]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hosoda discloses the binder for a battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above). Hosoda further discloses a fluorine-containing polymer and polyvinylidene fluoride may be included in a mass ratio of preferably 15/85 to 85/15 and the Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer (different component) may be included in an amount of 7% by mass or less and 0.01% by mass or more relative to the sum of the amounts of the fluorine-containing polymer and the polyvinylidene fluoride (see paragraphs [0126]-[0127], [0136], and [0192]-[0204]).
Assuming 100g total of the fluorine-containing polymer and polyvinylidene fluoride, the Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer may be included in an amount of 0.01g to 7g. As such, the mass ratio of Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer/polyvinylidene fluoride would range from 0.01/85 to 7/15 (which 0.01% to 32% of Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer), which substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the mass ratio of fluorine-containing copolymer/polyvinylidene fluoride, of 99/1 to 1/99 (which is 99% to 1% of Vdf/2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluropropene copolymer).
Regarding Claim 6, Hosoda discloses the binder for a battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Hosoda further discloses an electrode mixture comprising the binder for a battery according to the aforementioned claim 1, a powder electrode material, and water or a non-aqueous solvent (see paragraphs [0212]-[0213] and [0241]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hosoda discloses the electrode mixture according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above). Hosoda further discloses the powder electrode material comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide (see paragraphs [0212]-[0216]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hosoda discloses the electrode mixture according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above). Hosoda further discloses the electrode mixture comprises the non-aqueous solvent and the non-aqueous solvent comprises N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (see paragraphs [0212] and [0241]-[0242]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hosoda discloses the binder for a battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Hosoda further discloses an electrode comprising an electrode material layer comprising the binder for a battery according to the aforementioned claim 1 (see abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0016], [0019], and [0212]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hosoda discloses the electrode mixture according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above). Hosoda further discloses an electrode comprising an electrode material layer formed of the electrode mixture according to the aforementioned claim 6 (electrode mixture may be used for the production of a positive electrode or negative electrode) (see abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0016], [0019], and [0212]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Hosoda discloses the electrode according to claims 9 and 10 (see rejection of claims 9 and 10 above). Hosoda further discloses a secondary battery comprising the electrode according to the aforementioned claims 9 and 10 (see abstract and paragraphs [0001] and [0017]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoda as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Murase et al. JP-WO2015064099-A1 (hereinafter “Murase”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hosoda discloses the binder for a battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Hosoda is silent on a glass transition temperature of the fluorine-containing copolymer being 25° C or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor of polymer containing binders in batteries (see paragraphs [0001] and [0011]), Murase discloses including a fluorine-containing polymer X in a binder for a battery, with the fluorine-containing polymer X containing vinylidene fluoride and having a glass transition temperature of preferably -30°C or lower and -40°C or higher (see paragraphs [0011]-[0012], [0034]-[0035], and [0039]). This range falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a glass transition temperature of the fluorine-containing copolymer of 25° C or less.
Murase additionally discloses ensuring the proper glass transition temperature for the fluorine-containing polymer prevents the active material, the conductive material, etc. from being separated (powdered off) from the electrode mixture layer (see paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder for a battery disclosed by Hosoda wherein a glass transition temperature of the fluorine-containing copolymer is 25° C or less, as disclosed by Murase, in order to prevent the active material, the conductive material, etc. from being separated (powdered off) from the electrode mixture layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729