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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 5/20/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1-14 and 21-24 are pending. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn.
This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II comprising claim 7-14 in the reply filed on 12/29/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 (now canceled) are withdrawn as being directed toward a nonelected invention. New claims 21-24 are directed toward the composition of claim 7.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 recites “such that cooling the mixture below a freezing point of the second solvent freezes the second solvent and precipitates the second polymer, and heating the mixture evaporates the first solvent such that the first polymer is precipitated or remains in a solid phase, evaporates and/or sublimates the second solvent, and thermally decomposes and removes the first polymer such that the second polymer remains as a porous structure”, which is an intended use limitation that has not been given patentable weight. Claim 7 is directed to “a composition” to prepare electrodes. Methods of preparing electrodes using the composition are not given patentable weight.
Claim 7 recites the first polymer is removed, the first solvent is evaporated and the second solvent is evaporated and/or sublimated. Therefore, the claims may be interpreted as the second polymer being the only element of the claimed first solution and the claimed second solution that remains.
Claim 14 recites the electrode active material is “Li-NMC”, which is defined on page 7 of the specification as “lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides (Li-NMC)”. Thus, Li-NMC is interpreted to mean lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-14 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites a “composition” comprising “a first solution comprising a first polymer dissolved in a first solvent” and “a second solution comprising a second polymer dissolved in a second solvent”. The claim further recites “evaporates the first solvent”, “evaporates and/or sublimates the second solvent” and “removes the first polymer”, which is indefinite. It is unclear what claimed elements comprise the composition as the first and second solvents are evaporated and the first polymer is removed.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-13 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo et al., US 2022/0407181 A1, as evidenced by Wikipedia printout for tert-butyl alcohol.
Heo teaches a first polymer solution and a second polymer solution that once prepared are mixed to prepare a third polymer solution (mixture). The first polymer solution is prepared by dissolving a first binder resin (first polymer) in a first solvent, while the second polymer solution is prepared by dissolving a second binder resin (second polymer) in a second solvent. The first solvent can dissolve the first binder resin, and is a non-solvent for the second binder resin. The first solvent may be one capable of dissolving the first binder resin. In addition, the first solvent is a non-solvent for the second binder resin. Non-limiting examples of the first solvent include any one selected from ketone solvents, such as acetone, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), or the like, or a mixture of two or more of them. The second solvent can dissolve the second binder resin, and is a non-solvent for the first binder resin. The second solvent may be one capable of dissolving the second binder resin. In addition, the second solvent is a non-solvent for the first binder resin. Non-limiting examples of the second solvent include at least one selected from water, methanol, ethanol, propyl alcohol, butyl alcohol, butanediol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and tripropylene glycol [0071-0074]. The second binder resin may comprise polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) [claim 1 of Heo]. The first binder resin comprises a fluorinated binder resin such as polyvinylidene fluoride hexafluoropropylene (a polypropylene containing polymer) [claim 2 of Heo].
Thus, the claims are anticipated. The first solvent, acetone (about 39 kPa @25°C) or MEK (about 13 kPa @25°C), of Heo inherently has a higher vaporization pressure than the second solvent, butyl alcohol (about 1 kPa @25°C), of Heo. Similarly, the second solvent, butyl alcohol (about 25°C), of Heo inherently has a greater freezing point than the first solvent, acetone (about -95°C) or MEK (about -86°C), of Heo.
Regarding claim 10, butyl alcohol refers to a general category of alcohols with the formula C4H9OH, which includes butanol, isobutanol and t-butanol. Tert-butyl alcohol is a specific type of the butyl alcohol disclosed by Heo. This is evidenced by the below citation/tert-butyl alcohol Wikipedia definition.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the polymer solution may comprise inorganic particles such as those disclosed at [0047-0048] of Heo. The inorganic particles may be Li3PO4, an active material. The inorganic particles may be lithium titanium phosphate, an active material. The broad limitation “an electrode support” of claim 13 has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The particles disclosed at [0047] or heat-absorbing material disclosed at [0050] may be considered the “electrode support”.
PNG
media_image2.png
236
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
245
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note the claim interpretation/analysis section above. Claim 7 recites the first polymer is removed from the claimed composition. Heo teaches the second polymer (PVP) of the presently claimed invention.
*
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, 13-14 and 21-23 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al., US 2020/0295346 A1.
Tanaka teaches a dispersion (composition comprising a mixture) including an electrode active material, a binder formed of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) (first polymer of present claims), a first solvent (second solvent of present claims) in which the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) is not dissolved, and a second solvent (first solvent of present claims) in which the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) can be dissolved [abstract]. Other binders such as polypropylene and ethylene-propylene block copolymer (second polymer of present claims) may be contained in the dispersion [0150]. Examples of the first solvent include ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and the like. The first solvent is a solvent having low volatility (that is, a low vapor pressure) . Specifically, the vapor pressure of the first solvent at 25°C is preferably less than 3,200 Pa, and more preferably less than 1,000 Pa [0179-0180]. The second solvent is preferably a solvent having high volatility from the viewpoint of easiness of removal, and examples thereof include dimethyl carbonate (dimethyl carbonate, DMC), acetone, ethanol, and the like. Among those, dimethyl carbonate is particularly preferable from the viewpoint of a low water content in the solvent. The second solvent (first solvent of present claims) is a solvent having higher volatility than the first solvent. In other words, the second solvent is a solvent whose vapor pressure is higher than that of the first solvent. Specifically, the vapor pressure of the second solvent at 25°C is more preferably 3,200 Pa or more, and still more preferably 6,000 Pa or more [0185-0186]. The freezing point of acetone (first solvent of present claims) is about -95°C. The second solvent is a solvent in which polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) can be dissolved [0184]. The first solvent is a solvent in which polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) is not dissolved [0178].
Thus, the claims are anticipated. Note the first solvent of Tanaka corresponds to the second solvent of the present claims and the second solvent of Tanaka corresponds to the first solvent of the present claims. Polypropylene is inherently not soluble in acetone. Regarding claims 13-14, the electrode active material may be lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide [0038]. The conductive aid may be carbon black [0051]. The dispersion may include the electrode active material and the conductive aid [0189].
PNG
media_image4.png
233
643
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
229
638
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note the claim interpretation/analysis section above. Claim 7 recites the first polymer is removed from the claimed composition. Heo teaches the second polymer of the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Heo, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Furthermore, the claims have been rejected as indefinite as it is unclear what encompasses the “composition” of at least claim 7. Note the claim interpretation/analysis section above. Claim 7 recites the first polymer is removed from the claimed composition. Heo teaches the second polymer (PVP) of the presently claimed invention. In addition, the arguments regarding “removing either binder” from Heo are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The elected invention is directed toward a composition, not a method including removing a binder.
Regarding Tanaka, Applicant argues Tanaka primarily describes compositions with a single binder. Applicant argues Tanaka does not contemplate removing the “other binders”. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The elected invention is directed toward a composition, not a method including removing a binder.
Regarding new claims 21-23, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Furthermore, the claims have been rejected as indefinite as it is unclear what encompasses the “composition” of at least claim 7. Note the claim interpretation/analysis section above. Claim 7 recites the first polymer is removed from the claimed composition.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights