DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2024, 07/09/2025, 01/20/2026, and 07/14/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention formula 1 and a monomer in formula 2”.
Claims 1 and 7 recite that the fluoropolymer comprises “at least one of a polymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a copolymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a monomer in formula 2”.
This phrasing renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite because it created an ambiguity regarding the required boundaries of the claim fluoropolymer:
On one hand, the language can be interpreted as an alternative selection, requiring either (1) a polymer of a monomer in formula 1 OR (2) a copolymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a monomer in formula 2.
On the other hand, the structure can be interpreted conjunctively to require a mixture that must include both (1) a polymer of a monomer in formula 1 AND (2) a copolymer of monomer in formula 1 and formula 2.
Due to these conflicting interpretations, the precise metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined
For the purposes of examination and prior art rejections in this Office Action, claims 1 and 7 are being given their broadest reasonable interpretation in accordance with the first option above. The fluoropolymer is only required to comprise at least one alternative selected from the group consisting of (1) a polymer of a monomer in formula 1 OR (2) a copolymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a monomer in formula 2. Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1 and because they fail to cure the deficiencies of the indefinite claim.
5. Claims 2-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “relative molecular mass of 10W-300W”, and the claim also recites optionally “20W-200W” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “diameter of 50 nm- 500 nm” and the claim also recites optionally “100 nm-200nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoshiba et al. (US20150171394A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshiba discloses A negative electrode plate [Para. 0052] comprising
a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, the negative electrode 10 includes a negative current collector 10 b and a negative active material layer 10 a formed on the negative current collector 10 b [Para. 0052]
wherein the negative electrode film layer comprises a fluoropolymer, and the fluoropolymer comprises at least one of a polymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a copolymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a monomer in formula 2, formula 1 formula 2 wherein R1 to R7 are each independently selected from -H, -F, -Cl, -COOH, -COOR, -CHO, -COR, -CONH2, -CONHR, -CN, -CCl3, -CF3, -NO2, -OH, -OR, -R, and -ROR, optionally selected from -H, -F, -Cl, -COOH, and -COOR; wherein R represents a C1–C18 straight-chain or branched alkyl group, optionally a C1–C15 straight-chain or branched alkyl group, and further optionally a C1–C10 straight-chain or branched alkyl group (The adhesive layer 20 a may include a fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate 20 b-1 and a binder 20 b-2, and binds the separator 20 with the negative electrode 10, or binds the separator 20 with the positive electrode 30. [Para. 0034] The fluorine-based polymer of the fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate 20 b-1 may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), a copolymer including polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [Para. 0037)
the fluoropolymer is present in the negative electrode film layer in form of spherical particles. (The fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate 20 b-1 may be spherically shaped particles. [0040])
Regarding claim 3 Hoshiba discloses the spherical particles have a diameter of 50 nm–500 nm, optionally 100 nm–200 nm. (The particle diameter (when the particulate is assumed to have a spherical shape) of the fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate 20 b-1 has no particular limitation, as long as the particulate is dispersed into the negative active material layer 10 a. For example, the average particle diameter (an arithmetic average particle diameter) of the fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate may be about 80 nm to about 500 nm. [Para. 0038] The fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate had an average particle diameter of 300 nm when measured using a laser diffraction method [Para 0084]).
Regarding claim 4 Hoshiba discloses A negative electrode active mass slurry was prepared by dissolving and dispersing graphite, a carboxy-modified styrene-butadiene rubber particulate aqueous dispersion as a binder, a fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate aqueous dispersion (Aquatec ARC made by Arkema) combined by polymerizing an acrylic resin in a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) aqueous dispersion as a binder, and a sodium salt of carboxyl methyl cellulose as a thickener in a solid ratio of 97:1:1:1 in water. [Para 0084] The 97:1:1 solid ratio equates to a fluoropolymer content of approximately 1% by weight, which falls directly within the claimed range of 0.1%-10%.
Regarding claim 5, Hoshiba discloses fluorine-based polymer of the fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate 20 b-1 may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), a copolymer including polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), but the fluorine-based polymer is not limited thereto [Para 0037].
While Hoshiba does not explicitly disclose discloses a percentage of fluorine in the fluoropolymer is 41%–85%., the claimed percentage of fluorine in the fluoropolymer is an intrinsic property that is inherently present in the composition of polyvinylidene fluoride. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 6 Hoshiba discloses a negative electrode film layer comprising a fluorine-based polymer containing particulate 20 b-1 and binder 20 b-2 [Para 0042]. Hoshiba explicitly teaches that the volume ratio of the fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate and the binder may be about 1.5:1 to 20:1, or about 2:1 to 20:1 [Para 0042]
While Hoshiba does not explicitly state the specific percentage of fluorine in the total negative electrode film layer as 0.04%-8.5%, the volume ratios explicitly taught by Hoshiba encompasses and/or mathematically results in a fluorine concentration that falls within or overlaps the claimed range of 0.04%-8.5%.
Where the components and their relative ratios in the prior art composition are substantially identical or overlap with the claimed ranges, it is presumed that the resulting composition possesses the identical properties. The burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate that the claimed range yields unexpected results or represents a patentably distinct composition from that taught by Hoshiba. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7 Hoshiba discloses a preparation method of negative electrode plate, comprising:
dispersing a negative electrode active material, a conductive agent, a binder, and other additives into deionized water, and adding an emulsion containing a fluoropolymer to obtain a negative electrode slurry, wherein the fluoropolymer is present in the emulsion containing the fluoropolymer in form of spherical particles, and the fluoropolymer is present in the negative electrode slurry in form of spherical particles (A negative electrode active mass slurry was prepared by dissolving and dispersing graphite, a carboxy-modified styrene-butadiene rubber particulate aqueous dispersion as a binder, a fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate aqueous dispersion (Aquatec ARC made by Arkema) combined by polymerizing an acrylic resin in a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) aqueous dispersion as a binder, and a sodium salt of carboxylmethyl cellulose as a thickener in a solid ratio of 97:1:1:1 in water. Herein, the fluorine-based polymer-containing particulate had an average particle diameter of 300 nm when measured using a laser diffraction method and also, a spherical particle when examined with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) [Para. 0084])
applying the negative electrode slurry onto at least one surface of a negative electrode current collector, followed by drying and cold pressing to obtain a negative electrode plate, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises the negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode film layer on the at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode film layer comprises a fluoropolymer, and the fluoropolymer comprises at least one of a polymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a copolymer of a monomer in formula 1 and a monomer in formula 2, formula 1 formula 2 wherein R1 to R7 are each independently selected from -H, -F, -Cl, -COOH, -COOR, -CHO, -COR, -CONH2, -CONHR, -CN, -CCl3, -CF3, -NO2, -OH, -OR, -R; and, wherein R represents a C1–C18 straight-chain or branched alkyl group; and the fluoropolymer is present in the negative electrode film layer in form of spherical particles. (Subsequently, the negative electrode active mass slurry was coated on both sides of a 10 μm-thick copper foil current collector and dried. After the drying, the coating layer was compressed, forming a negative active material layer. Herein, the current collector and the negative active material layer had a total thickness of 120 μm. Then, a nickel lead wire was welded at the end thereof, thereby manufacturing a negative electrode. [Para. 0084])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshiba, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20070020525A1)
Regarding claim 2 Hoshiba discloses the limitations of claims 1 as outlined above.
Hoshiba teaches the fluoropolymer particulate but fails to explicitly specify the molecular weight of the polymer.
Kim discloses the binder (example polyvinylidene fluoride [Para. 0059]) may have an Mn (number average molecular weight) of 30,000- 100,000 Daltons (10W-300W) [Para. 0014], which falls within and overlaps the claimed relative molecular mass range of 10W-300W.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select or optimize the molecular weight of Hoshiba’s fluoropolymer within the range disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired physical properties such as adhesion [Para 0059].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to CALEB UCHECHUKWU ORJI whose telephone number is (571)270-3370. The
examiner can normally be reached 7:00am- 5:00pm ET Mon-Thur.
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,
Joshua Allen, can be reached at telephone number 5712703176. The 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 to authorized users only. Should you have
questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CALEB U ORJI/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights