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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al (JP 2001-223011 and its machine translation).
Ino et al disclose a binder composition for an electrode mixture (for a battery wherein the electrode composition is applied to an aluminum current collector; examples, [0048]-[0051]; instant claims 7 and 8) wherein the binder comprises fluorine-containing copolymer consisting of vinylidene fluoride, tetrafluoroethylene, and vinyl ether monomer (instant claims 1, 2, 9). The composition further comprises a solvent, an electrode active material, and may further comprise an additive polymer such as polyacrylonitrile ([0049]; instant claims 1, 4, 12), which has a nitrile group in the R position of the repeating unit in the instant claim 1.
Regarding the amounts of binder and additive polymer in the composition, the reference teaches the binder is present in the electrode layer in an amount of 0.1 to 20 %, 1 to 10 by weight, with the remainder of the solid content being active material. The amount of the additive resin is 20% by volume or less of the total binder materials. While the reference ranges for the amounts of each polymer are quite broad, the reference teaches that the fluorinated binder is included as the main binder component, and its inclusion reduces the crystallinity of the binder and improves performance, such as improved adhesion, flexibility, chemical stability, and improved charge-discharge properties (overview, [0008], [0042], [0045]), and the additive polymer binder (polyacrylonitrile), is added in an amount of 1 to 20% by volume of the total binder polymer added to the electrode composition.
The range as set forth by the reference (0.1 to 20%, 1 to 10 weight %) would fall within the scope of 0.1 to 1.6 parts by mass of the fluorinated binder material to the electrode active material ([0056]), and with the additive binder resin polyacrylonitrile being added in an amount of 1 to 20% by volume of the total binder, it can be estimated that the amount of additive polymer to the total binder would fall within the scope of the instantly claimed small content of the additive to the electrode active material.
The amounts described above would also fall within the scope of the instant claim 11 which requires the fluorine-containing polymer to the additive polymer to be 1:99 to 99:1.
Alternatively, given the teachings of the reference, the properties of the electrode material are adjusted by the addition and amount of the fluorinated binder polymer and the additive polymer binder, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount through routine experimentation and optimization of electrode properties such as chemical stability, flexibility, and charge-discharge characteristics. The resultant material, electrode with current collector, and battery would meet the limitations of the instant claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, and 12.
The polymer comprises the PVDF monomer in an amount of 30 to 80 mol% of the total polymer units ([0021]), as required by the instant claims 3 and 10.
The electrode active material included in the mixture composition includes preferably lithium transition metal oxide ([0053]; instant claim 6).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Ino et al, choosing as the electrode mixture, that comprising an additive polymer such as polyacrylonitrile as taught by the reference, wherein the polymer is also included in an amount as claimed as discussed above. The resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakita et al (JP 2010-123331 and its machine translation).
Wakita et al disclose a battery having an electrolyte, a negative electrode and current collector, and a positive electrode and current collector, wherein at least one of the positive or negative electrode layers comprise a fluorinate binder. an electrode composition comprising an active material, a solvent, and a binder wherein the binder comprises PVDF and polyvinylpyrrolidone (abstract, [0032]; instant claims 7, 8, 12).
The fluorinated binder polymer preferably includes a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, a PVDF-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer ([0010]; instant claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9).
The fluorinated resin binder is preferably added in an amount of 50 to 100%, more preferably 80 to 100% by mass of the total binder. The additive polyvinylpyrrolidone is added in an amount of 0.01 to 5% by mass. The total amount of binder to active material in the composition is 1 to 7% by mass which falls within the scope of the instant claim 1([0010]). Examples includes the pvdf-containing polymer in an amount of 3% by mass, and polyvinylpyrrolidone in an amount of 0.1% by weight with respect to all solids ([0035]).
Given the taught amount of polyvinylpyrrolidone, taught to be 0.1 to 3% by mass to the total solids (the binder, active material, other additives), the amount of active material in examples being 94%), it can be estimated that the amount pf polyvinylpyrrolidone at 0.1 to 5 % by mass of the material with the active material being ~94% of the total material, would fall within the scope of the instant claim 1 (0.001 to 0.2 parts per mass to the active material).
Alternatively, given the teachings of the reference for the amount of polyvinylpyrrolidone to be adjusted to achieve improved adhesion between the active material layer and the current collector. Therefore, given the amounts of polyvinylpyrrolidone and active material taught for the layer material, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amounts of additive polymer through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve improvements in mixture composition such as improved adhesion.
The reference fails to specifically teach the amount of PVDF to co-monomer, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged a 50:50 co-polymer, wherein the 50% amount of PVDF would also meet the limitations of the instant claims 3 and 10.
The reference teaches polyvinylpyrrolidone as discussed above, but further teaches that polyacrylonitrile may be added ([0010], [0011]; instant claims 1, 4, 5, and 9). The polymer is an additional additive suggested by the reference in combination with the PVDF binder. While the reference is silent with respect to the amount of its addition, the polymer is specifically mentioned, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have envisaged including an additional additive polymer in an amount similar to that of the other additive, polyvinylpyrrolidone, which as discussed above, is taught in an amount that would fall within the scope of the instant claims, and would meet the limitations of the instant claim 4.
Given the amounts of the polymers, the ratio of the PVDF-containing polymer and the additive would fall within the broad ratio of 1:99 to 99:1 as required by the instant claim 11.
The electrode active material is preferably a lithium transition metal oxide or lithium-iron phosphate ([0016], [0032]; instant claim 6).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Wakita et al, choosing as the electrode mixture, that comprising an additive polymer such as polyvinylpyrrolidone (or also polyacrylonitrile) as taught by the reference, wherein the polymer is also included in an amount as claimed as discussed above. The resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakita et al in view of Ino et al.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected by Wakita et al above, however, they are alternatively rejected over Wakita et al in view of Ino et al.
Wakita et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches PVDF- co-polymers, and while one of ordinary skill in the art can envisage a 50:50 equal amount, the reference fails to specifically disclose the amount of PVDF monomer with the co-monomers.
Ino et al has also been discussed above. The reference teaches polymer having similar monomers to those of Wakita et al, and teaches advantages to the resultant electrode layer and composition to comprise a polymer comprising TFE or HFP and PVDF, wherein the amount of PVDF to the other monomers is 30 to 80 mol % ([0021]) to achieve improved chemical stability and flexibility.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention, to prepare the material of Wakita et al, choosing as the PVDF-TFE or PVDF-HFP polymer, that having the PVDF monomer in the polymer at a content of 50 to 80 mol% as taught to impart flexibility and chemical stability to the mixture and electrode by Ino et al, and also meeting the limitations of the instant claims 3 and 10.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino et al in view of Wakita et al.
The references have been discussed above. The Ino et al reference teaches that an additive polymer to improve adhesiveness may be added, and provides a non-limiting list of polymers including polyacrylonitrile, but fails to specifically teach polyvinylpyrrolidone.
Wakita et al teaches a similar material and teaches the inclusion of polyvinylpyrrolidone as a means to improve the adhesive properties of the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Ino et al, choosing as the polymer added to improve adhesion, that taught to be known and advantageous by Wakita et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moon et al (2020/0127281) disclose a positive electrode slurry for a lithium secondary battery and positive electrode comprising an active material, a conductive material, a binder polymer, a solvent, and a dispersing agent (abstract). The slurry comprises 90 to 98% of active material, 0.5 to 5wt% binder, and 0.2 to 0.4 wt% dispersing agent (claim 4). The binder polymer is preferably PVDF-HFP, however, while the list of dispersing agents include two with acrylonitrile, the reference doesn’t provide motivation to choose the combination of the specific dispersing agent with a PVDF-HFP polymer (examples use PVDF and CMC).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722