DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to national-stage application filed 10/18/2023. Following entry of the concurrently filed preliminary amendment, claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination herein.
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 . However, 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 a 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.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) accompanying the application papers in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to independent claims 1 and 14, the Office is interpreting the phrase “having a contact angle, according to the method reported in the description, …” as a reference to the procedure for measuring water contact angle as set forth in paragraphs [00140]-[00142] of the as-filed specification.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 12 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.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is inconsistent with parent claim 9 with respect to permissible dosages for ionizing radiation. In particular, whereas claim 9 stipulates “a dosage lower than 70 kGy” (see line 3), claim 12 recites (cf., line 2) a dosage of “from 0.1 kGy to 70 kGy”. Thus, the latter range literally reads on a maximum dosage, 70 kGy, that falls outside the range specified in claim 9 for the same parameter. For purposes of substantive examination, an assumption has been made that claim 9 controls as to maximum dosage value (i.e., < 70 kGy). However, clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abusleme et al (WO 2008/129041 A1) (hereinafter, ‘Abusleme’).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6 and 15: Abusleme has already disclosed vinylidene fluoride (VDF)/acrylic acid (AA) copolymers, wherein the AA content is 2.63% or 1.40% by moles, the fraction of randomly distributed AA units is 72% or 71%, respectively [for claim 6], and the contact angle is 60o or 55o, respectively (see ¶¶ [0115]-[0123], Table 1: Examples 1, 2; ¶ [0142], Table 4, Example 8; and ¶¶ [0144]-[0146], Table 5, final entry (0/100 wt%/wt% - Blend of Homopolymer/polymer of example 2). Said AA is a hydrophilic monomer (MA) under claimed formulae (I)/(Ia) where R1, R2 and R3 are each a hydrogen atom and Rx is a carboxyl group [for claims 1-3], and the disclosed contact angles fall well within the ranges recited in claims 1 and 15. Further as to contact angle, to the extent that Abusleme’s disclosed measurement method (according to ASTM D2578-84D, see ¶ [0114]) differs from the method reported in the present description, there is no evidence in the record showing that the contact angles reported for the aforementioned VDF/AA copolymers of Abusleme would vary as a function of measurement method, let alone exceed 73o [claim 1] or 70o [claim 15] if measured by the method described herein. Note that any difference in measurement procedure, to be of patentable significance, must result in a substantially different product (copolymer) than that obtained by the prior art process. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claims 4-5: Abusleme discloses the polymer (A) according to claim 1 as discussed above. Abusleme also clearly discloses that, most preferably, the monomer (MA) is AA and/or HEA (i.e., hydroxyethyl acrylate, see ¶¶ [0026]-[0027]), and, as such, the use of HEA as a viable monomer (MA) alternative to the exemplified AA monomer would have been immediately-envisaged by one having ordinary skill in the art. Case law holds that when the reference teaches a small genus which places a claimed species in the possession of the public (i.e., Abusleme clearly teaches the small genus consisting of AA and HEA as preferred monomer (MA)), the species is anticipated, In re Schaumann, 197 USPQ 5. In the alternative, to the extent that Abusleme discloses HEA as a viable monomer (MA) alternative to AA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to produce the Polymer (A) of Abusleme from VDF copolymer derived from HEA in lieu of AA, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 16-17: Abusleme discloses the polymer (A) according to claim 1 as discussed above. Abusleme further discloses that the VDF monomer can include, in addition to vinylidene fluoride, at least one conventionally used monomer copolymerizable with vinylidene fluoride, such as vinyl fluoride, trifluoroethylene, tetrafluoroethylene, and hexafluoropropylene (see ¶ [0020]). Vinyl fluoride, trifluoroethylene, tetrafluoroethylene, and hexafluoropropylene are each a species of fluorinated comonomers (CF) under group (a) or (b) as claimed [for claims 7, 16]. Abusleme further discloses that it is preferred that the amount of vinylidene fluoride in the vinylidene fluoride monomer is at least 70 mol %, thus implying the amount of monomer copolymerizable with vinylidene fluoride is 30 mol% or less (see ¶ [0020]), the latter defining a range fully embracive of the ranges recited in claims 8 and 17 for mole% of recurring units derived from one or more fluorinated comonomers (CF) in the polymer (A), which Abusleme describes as semi-crystalline (see ¶ [0037]). It has consistently been held that even a slight overlap in ranges establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05, and this is especially the case where, as here, the claimed ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art. Indeed, the normal desire of an artisan to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed percentage range lies the optimum sub-range of percentages. See, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding Claim 13, Abusleme discloses the polymer (A) according to claim 1 as discussed above. Abusleme further discloses an electrode-forming composition, composition (C) (see ¶ [0127]),
comprising:
a) at least one electrode active material (AM) (see id., conductive Carbon Black + LiCoO2)
b) at least one binder (B), wherein binder (B) comprises at least one vinylidene fluoride
(VDF) copolymer, polymer (A), according to claim 1 (see id., electrode comprising polymer of Example 1); and
c) at least one solvent (S) (see id., resin produced as in Example 1 dissolved in N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)).
Regarding Claims 14 and 20, Abusleme discloses the polymer (A) according to claim 1 as discussed above. Abusleme further discloses an electrode (see¶ [0127]), comprising:
- a metal substrate (see id., Aluminum foil substrate), and
- directly adhered onto at least one surface of said metal substrate, at least one layer
consisting of a composition comprising:
(a) at least one vinylidene fluoride (VDF) copolymer [polymer (A)}, polymer (A), that
comprises comprising:
(i) recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (VDF);
(ii) recurring units derived from at least one hydrophilic monomer [monomer (MA)],
monomer (MA), of formula (I) (see id., prepared electrode-forming composition comprises VDF/AA copolymer of Example 1 of Abusleme, wherein AA is a species under claimed formula (I)),
wherein polymer (A) has a contact angle, according to the method reported in the
description, lower than 73° (see ¶¶ [0115]-[0123], Table 1 discloses contact angle of 60o for VDF/AA copolymer of Example 1); and
(b) at least one electro-active material (AM) (see ¶ [0127]; conductive Carbon Black + LiCoO2 used as AM of electrode-forming composition).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claims 9-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abusleme as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jarvis et al (Journal of Power Sources 97-98 (2001) 664-666) (hereinafter, ‘Jarvis’).
Regarding Claims 9-12 and 18-19: Abusleme discloses the polymer (A) according to claim 1 as discussed above, and teaches its utility as a binder, especially for forming electrodes of Lithium batteries (see ¶ [0036]). Abusleme differs from the claimed process in failing to disclose a step of irradiating a polymer (F) with an ionizing radiation at a dosage lower than 70 kGy (wherein polymer (F) comprises the same recurring units (i) and (ii) as defined in claim 1).
However, in the same technical field, Jarvis also discloses a battery (see Abs.). Moreover, Jarvis, like Aubsleme, teaches utilizing a PVDF binder in an electrode to bind the electrode to the current collector (see Introduction on page 664) and further teaches that the PVDF can be irradiated with a gamma source for a total of 10kgray (kGy) [for claims 9, 12, 18-19] in order to enhance the adhesion between the electrode and a copper current collector (see table 1 which illustrates the increase in adhesion). The irradiation presumably occurred in the presence of air [for claim 11], absent any indication the treatment was carried out in an oxygen-free environment. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Abusleme by irradiating the disclosed polymer (A) at a dosage of 10 kGy as per Jarvis, in the expectation of similarly enhancing the adhesion between the electrode and current collector.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected. No claims are in condition for allowance at this time.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/06-13-26
Prosecution Insights