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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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 3 and 13 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.
Claims 3 and 13 state “wherein the contact angle is measured using a Contact Angle System OCA20 at 23C”. However, these claims stop short of describing the particular type of liquid used to measure the contact angle, the manner in which the polymer sample or film is prepared, the surface of the film on which the measurement is performed, the droplet volume, the time at which the measurement is taken, or the number of measurements to be averaged. These variables affect the contact angle value. For example, see the instant published application paragraphs 36-37 and 159-162 which detail a measurement procedure. Merely identifying the instrument and temperature does not provide an objection and reproducible boundary for the claimed numerical limitation. A search on the merits could not be completed for claims 3 and 13 due to the indefiniteness of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (US 2007/0054184) in view of Korzhenko (US 2005/0062023).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 5, 9 and 14-16, Yong teaches an electrode-forming composition, composition (C), comprising:
a) at least one electrode active material (such as carbon powder, see paragraph 58);
b) at least one binder (PVDF, see paragraph 58), wherein binder comprises at least one vinylidene fluoride (VDF) polymer (such as PVDF, see paragraph 58), polymer (A),
c) at least one solvent (such as NMP, see paragraph 58).
Yong teaches a negative electrode that contains PVDF as the binder, but does not explicitly teach that the PVDF is treated with an ionizing radiation in the presence of oxygen at a dosage lower than 70 kGy, wherein irradiating the polymer (F) involves formation of a radical in polymer (F) and wherein the radical reacts with the oxygen to form a polymer (F) which is utilized as a binder in the anode. It is noted that Yong teaches adhesion of the anode slurry to a copper current collector (see paragraph 47).
Korzhenko also discloses a process in which a PVDF containing solvent is coated onto a substrate (see abstract).
Korzhenko teaches utilizing a PVDF compound that has been irradiated to achieve desirable bonding effects (see paragraphs 28-30). Korzhenko goes on to teach that the PVDF may be modified by introducing functional groups to promote bonding between a PVDF-containing coating and a substrate and identifies “PVDFs irradiated in the presence of oxygen” as one of the modified PVDF materials suitable for that purpose (paragraphs 28 and 30). Korzhenko teaches that the irradiating step utilizes gamma radiation at a dose between 1-15 Mrad (10-150 kGy, paragraph 49). The formation of a polymer radical and reaction of that radical with oxygen would be a natural result of performing Korzhenko’s disclosed ionizing irradiation of PVDF in the presence of oxygen. In this process, Korzhenko teaches:
Recurring units derived from vinylidene fluoride (as disclosed in paragraph 22 which states that the PVDF materials include both VDF homopolymers and copolymers of VDF).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the irradiating step of Korzhenko to the untreated PVDF of Yong in order to enhance the bonding to the substate/current collector of Yong.
Furthermore, while Yong, as modified above, does not teach the claimed range for the radiation dosage, it does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 10-12, Yong further discloses a process for the manufacture of an electrode, electrode (E), said process comprising:
(A) providing a metal substrate having at least one surface;
(B) providing an electrode-forming composition, composition (C), according to claim 1;
(C) applying the composition (C) provided in step (B) onto the at least one surface of the metal substrate provided in step (A), thereby providing an assembly comprising a metal substrate coated with said composition (C) onto the at least one surface;
(D) drying the assembly provided in step (C);
(E) submitting the dried assembly obtained in step (D) to a compression step to obtain the electrode (E) (see paragraph 58 which discloses coating a produced anode slurry onto a current collector, drying it then rolling it).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2007/0254174 – discloses functionalizing PVDF to promote bonding with a substrate via irradiation in the presence of oxygen, similar to the claimed composition.
US 2018/0355206 – Discloses a lithium-ion electrode comprising an active material, a PVDF binder and an organic solvent with the binder providing adhesion between the electrode layer and the current collector, similar to the instant invention.
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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights