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 .
This office action addresses pending claims 1-5 and 8-21. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, 16-19 were amended, claim 21 was added, and claims 6-7 were cancelled in the response filed 7/7/2026.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites “wherein M is selected from…” and “Q is selected from…”. However, no claim recites an M or Q; therefore it is unclear as to what is being referred.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends from cancelled claim 6, and therefore the claim does not contain reference to a previous claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 13-16, 18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carella et al. (WO 2018/104564) in view of Stanga et al. (US 2014/0154573).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Carella discloses a method of stabilizing aqueous dispersions of fluorinated polymers, based on vinylidene fluoride (VDF) (abstract). The VDF-based polymer (F) comprises an amount of recurring units from vinylidene fluoride [VDF] of at least 85.0 mol% [thereby comprising at least 70% by moles] ([0048]), and comprises at least 0.1 mol% or more preferably at least 0.2 mol% of recurring units derived from a methacrylic monomer (MA) [functional group of carboxylic] ([0058]), and in an example (A1), uses 0.7% moles of acrylic acid [thereby comprising less than 0.9% by moles] ([0120]). The VDF-based polymer (F) further has a melting temperature between 130 and 180C (see at least Examples 1-4, with melting temperatures between 140-160C in Table 1). In at least synthesis 1 of polymer A1 ([0116]), Carella teaches that the VDF based polymers have end groups of -CF2H of 35 mmol/kg, -CF2CH3 of 19 mmol/kg, and -CH2OH of 8 mmol/kg ([0122]); and therefore has a total number of chain ends -CF2H and -CF2CH3 of less than 70 mmoles/kg (35+19=54 mmoles/kg).
The VDF-based polymer (F) can be used in electrode-forming compositions for positive electrode, and said electrode-forming composition further includes electrode material [electrode-active materials] ([0113]).
While Carella discloses that the positive electrode can be a composite metal chalcogenide ([0109]), Carella does not explicitly disclose wherein said one or more electro-active material of formula is: Li(FexMn(1-x))PO4, where 0≤x≤1, or (claim 8) wherein said one or more electrode-active material comprises lithium iron phosphate of formula LiFePO4.
Stanga discloses a composition of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) polymer [polymer (F)] comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and at least one methacrylic monomer (MA), wherein the composition is used in manufacturing an electrode by mixing the composition, powdery electrode material, and an organic solvent (abstract, [0017]-[0023]). The electrode can be a positive electrode ([0170]). The positive electrode can be: a composite metal chalcogenide of formula LiMY2 [including LiNixCo1-xO2 and LiNiO2] ([0171]); a lithiated transition metal oxyanion-based electrode material of formula AB(XO4)fE1-f, where A is lithium, B is chosen among Fe, Mn, Ni or mixtures thereof, X is either P, S, V, Si, Nb, Mo, or a combination thereof, and f is between 0.75 and 1 ([0172]); or a phosphate-based electrode having the formula Li(FexMn1-x)PO4 in which 0≤x≤1, and where x is preferably 1 (that is, LiFePO4) ([0174]). The electrode-forming composition is applied to at least one surface of a metal substrate ([0209]), and subsequently dried ([0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the phosphate-based electrode active material of Li(FexMn1-x)PO4- including LiFePO4 as taught by Stanga as the positive electrode-active material of Carella because Stanga teaches the active material can be used as a positive electrode active material, and would amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Carella discloses that the positive electrode can be a composite metal chalcogenide ([0109]), Carella does not explicitly disclose the electrode-forming composition further comprising one or more organic solvents.
Stanga discloses a composition of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) polymer [polymer (F)] comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and at least one methacrylic monomer (MA), wherein the composition is used in manufacturing an electrode by mixing the composition, powdery electrode material, and an organic solvent (abstract, [0017]-[0023]). The electrode can be a positive electrode ([0170]). The electrode-forming composition is applied to at least one surface of a metal substrate ([0209]), and subsequently dried ([0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the organic solvent of the electrode-forming composition of Stanga with the electrode forming composition of Carella for the purpose of dispersing the components in the composition and applying the composition to a metal substrate to form an electrode.
Regarding claim 3, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In at least example A1, Carella teaches that the VDF based polymers have end groups of -CF2H of 35 mmol/kg, -CF2CH3 of 19 mmol/kg, and -CH2OH of 8 mmol/kg ([0122]); and therefore has a total number of chain ends -CF2H and -CF2CH3 of less than 60 mmoles/kg (35+19=54 mmoles/kg).
Regarding claim 4, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In at least synthesis 1 of polymer A1, the VDF based polymer comprises 98.3% by moles of recurring units derived from VDF, and comprises 0.7% by moles of acrylic acid [carboxylic functional group] ([0120]); therefore, Carella satisfies the limitation of at least 80% by moles of VDF, and less than 0.9% by moles of recurring units derived from monomers comprising a functional group selected from carbonylic, carboxylic, sulfonic, sulfinic, phosphonic, hydroxy, -SH, ester or mixtures thereof.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carella further teaches that electrode-forming composition for positive electrodes comprises (a) the polymer (F) in an amount mount preferably 2-9 wt% or preferably about 3 wt%, (b) carbon black in an amount of 2-10 wt%, and (c) an electrode material in an amount of 80-97 wt%, and preferably 92 wt% ([0113]). Therefore, Carella discloses (claim 5) the VDF based polymers in an amount from 0.5-10% by weight, and electrode active material in an amount from 80-99% by weight, and (claim 18) the VDF based polymers in an amount from 0.7-5% by weight, and electrode active material in an amount from 80-99% by weight.
Regarding claim 13, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Carella discloses that making an electrode (ii) using an electrode-forming composition according to claim 1 ([0107]-[0109]), Carella does not explicitly disclose the process comprising (i) providing a metal substrate having at least one surface, (iii) applying the composition onto the at least one surface of the metal substrate, thereby providing an assembly comprising a metal substrate coated with said composition onto the at least one surface; and (iv) drying the assembly.
Stanga discloses a composition of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) polymer [polymer (F)] comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and at least one methacrylic monomer (MA), wherein the composition is used in manufacturing an electrode by mixing the composition, powdery electrode material, and an organic solvent (abstract, [0017]-[0023]). The electrode-forming composition is applied to at least one surface of a metal substrate ([0209]), and subsequently dried ([0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the steps of providing a metal substrate, applying the composition to the metal substrate, and drying as taught by Stanga with the method of making an electrode of Carella for the purpose of applying the active material to a current collector and forming the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 14, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga teaches applying the electrode-forming composition to at least one surface of a metal substrate and drying ([0209], [0211]), and Carella discloses the electrode-forming composition as having a VDF based polymer of claim 1 ([0048], [0058], [0116], [0120]) with electro-active materials ([0113]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carella teaches that the positive electrode is for a lithium ion battery ([0109]), and Stanga further teaches a battery comprising an electrode (claim 13). Therefore, the combination renders obvious an electrochemical device [battery] comprising at least one electrode according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In at least synthesis 1 of polymer A1 ([0116]), Carella teaches that the VDF based polymers have end groups of -CF2H of 35 mmol/kg, -CF2CH3 of 19 mmol/kg, and -CH2OH of 8 mmol/kg ([0122]). Therefore, said one or more VDF polymers have a number of chain ends -CF2H and -CF2CH3 of less than 50 mmoles/kg because both -CF2H and -CF2CH3 are under 50 mmol/kg.
Regarding claim 20, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carella discloses that the electrode is a positive electrode [cathode] ([0109]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Carella teaches that the composition can be applied by casting, spray coating, roll coating, doctor blading, slot die coating, gravure coating, ink jet printing, spin coating and screen printing, brush, squeegee, foam applicator, curtain coating, vacuum coating ([0102]). Therefore, the composition is spreadable because it is coated onto a substrate where the methods involves types of spreading.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carella et al. (WO 2018/104564) in view of Stanga et al. (US 2014/0154573), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chernysheva et al. (WO 2019/002180).
Regarding claim 9, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. It is noted that while the claim recites limitations which are directed to a method of making the polymer (i.e., “polymer has been obtained via polymerization in an aqueous emulsion…in the presence of a redox-initiating system comprising at least one organic radical initiator as oxidizing agent and at least one sulphur based reducing agent”) which are interpreted as a product-by-process claim, the limitations appear to imply a structure requiring the polymerization using a redox-initiating system comprising at least one organic radical initiator as oxidizing agent and at least one sulphur based reducing agent.
While Carella discloses using radical initiators selected from dimethylethanolamine (DMEA), diethylethanolamine (DEEA), diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), and propyl amine ([0078]), which are organic radical initiators, to polymerize the VDF polymer, Carella does not disclose the VDF being polymerized in the presence of at least one sulphur based reducing agent.
Chernysheva discloses a method of manufacturing partially fluorinated polymers, notably vinylidene fluoride based polymers [polymer (P)] (abstract). The method includes polymerizing the polymer (P) in the presence of a redox-initiating system comprising at least one organic radical initiator and at least one composition [composition (CS)] comprising at least one compound [compound (S)] bearing at least one sulfinic acid group [sulphur based reducing agent] ([0012]). Chernysheva teaches that using the compound bearing at least one sulfinic acid group in the polymerization results in a low number of branching in its polymeric chain, and advantageously leads to improved thermal stability and other stability ([0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the compound (S) bearing at least one sulfinic acid group during the polymerization of the VDF polymer as taught by Chernysheva with the polymerization of the VDF polymer of Carella for the purpose of having the polymerization result in a low number of branching in its polymeric chain, and advantageously leading to improved thermal stability and other stability.
Regarding claim 10, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chernysheva discloses the compound (S) has at least one sulfinic acid group ([0012]) [therefore in the acid form] or can be in the salt form ([0046]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chernysheva discloses the compound (S) having the following formula (S-1) ([0046]):
PNG
media_image1.png
90
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
M is a hydrogen atom, an ammonium ion, a monovalent metal ion;
R20 is -OH or -N(R4)(R5) where each of R4 and R5, identical or different from one another, are hydrogen atom or linear or branched alkyl chain having from 1 to 6 carbon atoms;
R21 is hydrogen atom, linear or branched alkyl group having from 1 to 6 carbon atoms, 5- or 6-membered cycloalkyl group, 5-or 6-membered aryl group;
R22 is -COOM, -SO3M, -C(=O)R4, -C(=O)N(R4)(R5), -C(=O)OR4, wherein M, R4 and R5 are as defined above ([0046]).
Therefore, the compound (S) anticipates and reads on the limitations of the compound bearing a sulfinic group in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Carella discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chernysheva discloses using 2-hydroxy-2-sulfinatoacetic acid disodium salt as the compound bearing a sulfinic group initiator during polymerization ([0086],[0088]). Further, the compound (S) of Chernysheva reads on the compound 2-hydroxy-2-sulfinatoacetic acid when M is H, R20 is -OH, R21 is -H, and R22 is -COOM where M is H.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 13-15, 17-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinati et al. (US 2011/0082271) in view of Stanga et al. (US 2014/0154573).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Brinati discloses a polymer comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and trifluoroethylene (TrFE), such polymer comprising end groups of formula -CF2H and/or -CF2CH3 in an amount of at least 60 mmoles per kg of VDF recurring units [polymer (F)] (abstract). Polymer F consists essentially of from 10-50% by moles of recurring units derived from TrFE, and 50-90% moles of recurring units derived from VDF ([0019]-[0021]).
Brinati discloses embodiments where the VDF is at or above 70%, and does not disclose any recuring units comprising a functional group selected from carbonylic, carboxylic, sulfonic, sulfinic, phosphonic, hydroxy, -SH, ester or mixtures thereof ([0071]-[0100], and see Table 1, and Ex 1-5).
The melting temperatures of the polymers are 144.5C, 147.5C, 144.3C, 144.9C, and 138.6C ([0074], [0082], [0087], [0091], [0098]), which is within the claimed range of 130-180C.
Brinati teaches that the amount of end groups of -CF2H and -CF2CH3 affect the flexibility and deformability while retaining properties ([0015]), and thus suggests adjusts the amount of end groups to obtain the balance of flexibility, deformability, and properties.
While Brinati teaches that the polymer is used as piezoelectric, ferroelectric, dielectric or pyroelectric materials in electric/electronic devices (abstract, [0001]), Brinati does not explicitly discloses wherein the polymer is used in an electrode-forming composition [for a battery, an electric device], and does not explicitly disclose the composition comprising one or more electro-active materials of formula: Li(FexMn(1-x))PO4, where 0≤x≤1, or (claim 8) wherein said one or more electrode-active material comprises lithium iron phosphate of formula LiFePO4.
Stanga discloses a composition of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) polymer [polymer (F)] comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and at least one methacrylic monomer (MA), wherein the composition is used in manufacturing an electrode by mixing the composition, powdery electrode material, and an organic solvent (abstract, [0017]-[0023]). The electrode can be a positive electrode ([0170]). The positive electrode can be: a composite metal chalcogenide of formula LiMY2 [including LiNixCo1-xO2 and LiNiO2] ([0171]); a lithiated transition metal oxyanion-based electrode material of formula AB(XO4)fE1-f, where A is lithium, B is chosen among Fe, Mn, Ni or mixtures thereof, X is either P, S, V, Si, Nb, Mo, or a combination thereof, and f is between 0.75 and 1 ([0172]); or a phosphate-based electrode having the formula Li(FexMn1-x)PO4 in which 0≤x≤1, and where x is preferably 1 (that is, LiFePO4) ([0174]). The electrode-forming composition is applied to at least one surface of a metal substrate ([0209]), and subsequently dried ([0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the VDF polymer of Brinati in a positive electrode composition including an active material of Li(FexMn1-x)PO4- including LiFePO4 as taught by Stanga as Brinati teaches the polymer can be used in such devices, and Stanga teaches the active material can be used as a positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga discloses the composition is used in manufacturing an electrode by mixing the composition, powdery electrode material, and an organic solvent (abstract, [0017]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Brinati teaches recurring units derived from VDF can be included in the range of 80-90% ([0019]-[0021]). Brinati further teaches an embodiment having 82.6% by moles of recurring units derived from VDF (see Ex 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga teaches the electrode comprises from 1% to 15% by weight at least one polymer (F), and from 80% to 99% by weight one powdery electrode material ([0218]-[0220]), and therefore teaches the same ratios for total solid content in the electrode-forming composition. Said ranges overlap with the claimed limitations, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of polymer of 1-10% and an amount of active material of 80-99% for the purpose of having the composition for making an electrode.
Regarding claim 13, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Brinati does not explicitly disclose the process comprising (i) providing a metal substrate having at least one surface, (iii) applying the composition onto the at least one surface of the metal substrate, thereby providing an assembly comprising a metal substrate coated with said composition onto the at least one surface; and (iv) drying the assembly.
Stanga discloses a composition of vinylidene fluoride (VDF) polymer [polymer (F)] comprising recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and at least one methacrylic monomer (MA), wherein the composition is used in manufacturing an electrode by mixing the composition, powdery electrode material, and an organic solvent (abstract, [0017]-[0023]). The electrode-forming composition is applied to at least one surface of a metal substrate ([0209]), and subsequently dried ([0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the steps of providing a metal substrate, applying the composition to the metal substrate, and drying as taught by Stanga with the method of modified Brinati for the purpose of applying the active material to a current collector and forming the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 14, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga teaches applying the electrode-forming composition to at least one surface of a metal substrate and drying ([0209], [0211]), and Brinati discloses the VDF based polymer of claim 1 (abstract).
Regarding claim 15, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga further teaches a battery comprising an electrode ([0171], claim 13). Therefore, the combination renders obvious an electrochemical device [battery] comprising at least one electrode according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Brinati teaches that the polymer can have 90% by moles of recurring units derived from VDF ([0019]-[0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the amount of 90% by mole of recurring units derived from VDF to obtain the benefits disclosed therein. Brinati discloses the polymers without any recuring units comprising a functional group selected from carbonylic, carboxylic, sulfonic, sulfinic, phosphonic, hydroxy, -SH, ester or mixtures thereof ([0071]-[0100], and see Table 1, and Ex 1-5).
Regarding claim 18, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga teaches the electrode comprises from 1% to 15% by weight at least one polymer (F), and from 80% to 99% by weight one powdery electrode material ([0218]-[0220]), and therefore teaches the same ratios for total solid content in the electrode-forming composition. Said ranges overlap with the claimed limitations, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of polymer of 1-5% and an amount of active material of 80-99% for the purpose of having the composition for making an electrode.
Regarding claim 20, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga discloses that the electrode is a positive electrode [cathode] ([0171]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Stanga teaches that the composition can be applied by casting, brush, roller, ink jet, squeegee, foam applicator, curtain coating, vacuum coating, spraying ([0209]).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinati et al. (US 2011/0082271) in view of Stanga et al. (US 2014/0154573), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chernysheva et al. (WO 2019/002180).
Regarding claim 9, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. It is noted that while the claim recites limitations which are directed to a method of making the polymer (i.e., “polymer has been obtained via polymerization in an aqueous emulsion…in the presence of a redox-initiating system comprising at least one organic radical initiator as oxidizing agent and at least one sulphur based reducing agent”) which are interpreted as a product-by-process claim, the limitations appear to imply a structure requiring the polymerization using a redox-initiating system comprising at least one organic radical initiator as oxidizing agent and at least one sulphur based reducing agent.
While Brinati discloses using radical initiators ([0039]-[0042]) including redox systems and organic radical initiators, to polymerize the VDF polymer, modified Brinati does not disclose the VDF being polymerized in the presence of at least one sulphur based reducing agent.
Chernysheva discloses a method of manufacturing partially fluorinated polymers, notably vinylidene fluoride based polymers [polymer (P)] (abstract). The method includes polymerizing the polymer (P) in the presence of a redox-initiating system comprising at least one organic radical initiator and at least one composition [composition (CS)] comprising at least one compound [compound (S)] bearing at least one sulfinic acid group [sulphur based reducing agent] ([0012]). Chernysheva teaches that using the compound bearing at least one sulfinic acid group in the polymerization results in a low number of branching in its polymeric chain, and advantageously leads to improved thermal stability and other stability ([0013]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the compound (S) bearing at least one sulfinic acid group during the polymerization of the VDF polymer as taught by Chernysheva with the polymerization of the VDF polymer of Brinati for the purpose of having the polymerization result in a low number of branching in its polymeric chain, and advantageously leading to improved thermal stability and other stability.
Regarding claim 10, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chernysheva discloses the compound (S) has at least one sulfinic acid group ([0012]) [therefore in the acid form] or can be in the salt form ([0046]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chernysheva discloses the compound (S) having the following formula (S-1) ([0046]):
PNG
media_image1.png
90
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein:
M is a hydrogen atom, an ammonium ion, a monovalent metal ion;
R20 is -OH or -N(R4)(R5) where each of R4 and R5, identical or different from one another, are hydrogen atom or linear or branched alkyl chain having from 1 to 6 carbon atoms;
R21 is hydrogen atom, linear or branched alkyl group having from 1 to 6 carbon atoms, 5- or 6-membered cycloalkyl group, 5-or 6-membered aryl group;
R22 is -COOM, -SO3M, -C(=O)R4, -C(=O)N(R4)(R5), -C(=O)OR4, wherein M, R4 and R5 are as defined above ([0046]).
Therefore, the compound (S) anticipates and reads on the limitations of the compound bearing a sulfinic group in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Brinati discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chernysheva discloses using 2-hydroxy-2-sulfinatoacetic acid disodium salt as the compound bearing a sulfinic group initiator during polymerization ([0086],[0088]). Further, the compound (S) of Chernysheva reads on the compound 2-hydroxy-2-sulfinatoacetic acid when M is H, R20 is -OH, R21 is -H, and R22 is -COOM where M is H.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is nothing in Carella, or in the combination of Carella and Stanga, to teach that the amount of acrylic acid monomers and the amount of the claimed end groups in the VDF-based polymer – in combination with the claimed electro-active material – are result-effective variables or are critical to containing a composition which provides both good adhesion and good spreadability.
This is not considered persuasive. In an example, Carella discloses an embodiment (polymer A1) where the polymer includes 0.7 mol% of acrylic acid ([0120]), and teaches that the VDF based polymers have end groups of -CF2H of 35 mmol/kg, -CF2CH3 of 19 mmol/kg, and -CH2OH of 8 mmol/kg ([0122]); and therefore has a total number of chain ends -CF2H and -CF2CH3 of less than 70 mmoles/kg (35+19=54 mmoles/kg). Therefore, Carella was not relied upon for a result-effective variable teaching of the amount of acrylic acid monomer nor claimed end groups.
While Applicant argues that the proposed modification would be expected to form a solid non-spreadable gel (referring to Ex. 4c in Table 2 using a VDF copolymer having 1% of AA) or have a low adhesion on metal (referring to Ex. 3c in Table 3, using a VDF homopolymer having a higher amount of -CF2H and -CH2CH3 [89 mmoles/kg]), these comparisons are unfounded. Neither of these examples are the polymer of Carella having 0.7 mol% of acrylic acid and a total number of chain ends -CF2H and -CF2CH3 of less than 70 mmoles/kg (35+19=54 mmoles/kg). Applicant has not provided any actual test of the polymer or polymer characteristics of Carella.
Even further, the claim requires “said VDF based polymers comprise less than 0.9% by moles of recurring units” and “a total number of chain ends -CF2H and -CF2CH3 of less than 70 mmoles/kg”, both of which the polymer A1 of Carella satisfies. Therefore, Carella meets the claim limitations of the polymer.
In addition, the claim is directed to an electrode-forming composition. Carella teaches that the composition can be applied by casting, spray coating, roll coating, doctor blading, slot die coating, gravure coating, ink jet printing, spin coating and screen printing, brush, squeegee, foam applicator, curtain coating, vacuum coating ([0102]). Therefore, the composition is spreadable because it is coated onto a substrate where the methods involves types of spreading.
While Applicant argues that the amount of acrylic acid monomer and claimed end groups in combination with the claimed electro-active material are “critical”, Applicant has not provided evidence and has not demonstrated the criticality. Applicant only tests one active material [LiFePO4], and therefore there is no evidence to support that the claimed electro-active material is critical for good adhesion and good spreadability.
In addition, because Carella discloses a polymer within the claimed parameters of acrylic acid monomer (less than 0.9% by moles) and end groups (less than 70 mmoles/kg), Applicant has not compared the claimed invention against the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e) and In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). The unexpected results have not been compared to the closest prior art.
Even still, MPEP 716.02(d) states “to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Because Applicant only tests 1) one active material, 2) one material with acrylic acid and said material is outside the claimed range [no test with acrylic acid inside the claimed range], 3) and there is large gap between tests of chain ends [inside tests of 38 and 41 mmol/kg, and an outside tests of 89 mmol/kg] when the claimed range is 70 mmol/kg, the criticality has not been established, and the arguments of criticality are not considered persuasive.
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 JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights