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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/04/2026, 02/05/2026, 07/02/2025, 06/18/2025, 06/13/2025, 05/28/2025, 02/13/2025, 12/04/2024, 06/11/2024, 03/27/2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification was received on 03/27/2024. The specification is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6 ,7,8, 9, 11,13,17, 18, 19, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shujing Cheng et al. (US9518155B2; “Cheng155B2” hereinafter) in view of Dong Cheng et al. (WO-2021242657-A1; “Cheng657-A1” hereinafter, US202117926155A1 with a priority date of 05/24/2021 is used for citations) and in view of Hellring et al. (US20200176777A1, “Hellring” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng155B2 discloses a slurry composition (fluoropolymer composition for coating application, abstract) comprising: A slurry composition comprising: (a) a binder comprising at least one fluoropolymer (a polymeric binder Col. 1, line 60 and although various resins have been used as binder, fluorine-based resins such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), which adheres well to the material current collector and active material, is commonly used (Col. 1, lines 61-64)); and (b) a solvent system (solvent blend, abstract) comprising: (i) a molecule comprising a sulfoxide functional group (DMSO, abstract); and(ii) a polybasic ester and/or glycol ether (list of examples for glycol ethers Clo. 5, lines 18-)wherein the solvent system includes less than 1% by weight of a molecule comprising the structure R1C(=O)NR2R3 (see formula (I), col. 5), wherein R is an aliphatic saturated group, that can be linear or branched, having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and substituted by one or more functional groups comprising -C(=O)OR and -C(=)NR4R5, R being an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and R4 and R5 each independently are methyl or ethyl groups, and R2 and R3 each independently are methyl or ethyl groups (Col. 5 line 65 – Col. 6, lines 6), based on the weight of the solvent system.
Cheng155B2 discloses that the weight ratio between R1C(=O)NR2R3 and DMSO ranges from 1 part R1C(=O)NR2R3 to 99 parts DMSO or approximately 1 % of R1C(=O)NR2R3 in the solvent mixture to 99 parts of R1C(=O)NR2R3 to 1 part of DMSO approximately 99% (Cheng155B2: 1/99 to 99/1) (Cheng155B2, Col.7 line 20). The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Cheng155B2 further discloses that the solvent mixture can comprise further solvents and discloses that the amount of further solvents is preferably less than 50% by weight or 25% by amount of solvents (Cheng155B2, Col.7 lines 23-38). The addition of another solvent would decrease the weight percent of the R1C(=O)NR2R3 in the solvent system. Hellring, discloses the use of a primary solvent and a co-solvent and further discloses that the co - solvent and relevant amounts thereof may be selected to provide a dispersion of the fluoropolymer in the organic medium at room temperature, i.e., about 23 ° C. Cheng155B2 and Hellring are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely slurry fluoropolymer containing compositions. In seeking a solvent/solvent system able to disperse the fluoropolymer at room temperature before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of mixing two solvents as disclosed by Hellring to the slurry composition disclosed by Cheng155B2 as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result and further optimize the composition. Cheng155B2 further fails to disclose that the slurry further comprises: (c) an electrochemically active material and/or an electrically conductive agent. Cheng657-A1 however in the same field of endeavor discloses a nanosized phosphor olivine as electrode active material (Cheng657-A1: page 3, line 14). Cheng155B2 and Cheng657-A1 are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fluoropolymer slurries for the application in batteries. In seeking an fluoropolymer based electrode slurry that contains an electrochemically active material before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the electroactive material ad disclosed by Cheng657-A1 to the slurry disclosed by Cheng155B2 as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 and further discloses that the molecule comprising a sulfoxide functional group comprises dimethyl sulfoxide. (Cheng155B2: DMSO, abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 and further discloses the use of glycol ether esters and discloses ethyleneglycol- methyl ether acetate but fails to disclose di(propylene glycol) methyl ether acetate as the glycol ether. Modified Cheng155B2 discloses that the co - solvent may comprise, consist or essentially of, or consist of, for example glycol ethers such as propylene-glycol-methyl-ether and later discloses that the organic medium (solvent mixture) may comprise propylene glycol methyl ether acetate (Hellring: page 3, col. 1, line 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 but fails to disclose that the slurry contains a polybasic ester that comprises a dibasic ester. Modified Cheng155B2 discloses dibasic ester (DBE) (Hellring: page3, col. 1, line 4).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 and discloses that the fluoropolymer comprises a polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer. Cheng155B2 teaches that the polymer involved in the composition is a fluoropolymer (Col. 4, line 5) and discloses that the fluoropolymer may be a homopolymer or a copolymer (Col. 4, line 13) and later discloses that the fluoropolymer comprises a polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer. The polyvinylidene fluoride polymer includes homopolymers, copolymers... [0020].Regarding claim 9, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1, the fluoropolymer comprises a vinylidene fluoride copolymer. Cheng155B2 teaches that the vinylidene fluoride may be copolymerized with... (Cheng155B2 [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 and further discloses that a fluoropolymer is solubilized in the solvent system at room temperature in example 2.1 (Cheng155B2; Col. 9) but discloses that the solution did not become transparent indicating that the fluoropolymer did not fully dissolve. Modified Cheng155B2 discloses the usage of a co-solvent to enable dispersion and formation of a stable solution at 23°C (Hellring: [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 but fails to disclose that the composition comprises a crosslinking agent. Hellring discloses a crosslinking agent (Hellring: [0071]).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry according to claim 1 but fails to disclose that a film deposited from the slurry composition has a peel strength of at least 10 N/m, as measured by the PEEL STRENGTH TEST. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties with regard to the peel strength test is not positively stated by the reference(s). However, as shown by the previous argument and by the similar composition of modified Cheng155B2, the claim is obvious over the prior art reference. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 18, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition of claim 1 but fails to disclose that the slurry composition has a solids content of 60% to 80% by weight. Hellring discloses that the electrochemically active material is present in the slurry in amounts of 45% to 90%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976
Regarding claim 19, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1. Cheng155B2 fails to disclose that the slurry contains an electrochemically active material comprises a material capable of incorporating lithium comprising LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiFePO4, LiCoPO4a, LiMn02, LiMn204, Li(NiMnCo)O2,Li(NiCoAl)02, carbon-coated LiFePO4, or a combination thereof. Cheng657-A1 discloses that the phosphor-olivine based active particles include lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) (Cheng657-A1 [0046]).
Regarding claim 30, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 is substantially free of N-methyl-2- pyrrolidone (NMP) by disclosing the solvent blend used in the invention presents a good HSE profile with no CMR (Carcinogenic, mutagenic and Reprotoxic) chemicals (Col. 3, lines 15-16). NMP is a reprotoxic chemical.
Regarding claim 31, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 and discloses that the slurry/composition as a binder polymer for coating on any substrate and in particular as a binder for a battery material (Col. 3, line 50-52). Cheng155B2 further discloses an electrode comprising: (A) an electrical current collector (an electrical current collector, (Cheng155B2, [0011])); and (B) a film (a film formed on the electrical current collector (Cheng155B2: Col. 3 line 59)) on the electrical current collector, wherein the film is deposited from the slurry composition claim 1, wherein the film optionally further comprises residual solvent comprising the solvent systems by disclosing that Lithium secondary batteries are generally prepared by applying on a metal film a slurry consisting of an active material and a polymeric binder, drying the slurry and pressing the film(Cheng155B2; Col. 3, line58-61)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shujing Cheng et al. (US9518155B2; “Cheng155B2” hereinafter) in view of (WO-2021242657-A1; “Cheng657-A1” hereinafter, US202117926155A1 with a priority date of 05/24/2021 is used for citations) and in view of Hellring et al. (US20200176777A1, “Hellring” hereinafter) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Shike et al. (WO2020/203230, US 12054605 B2 is used for citations).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 but fails to disclose that the slurry is further comprising a dispersant comprising polyvinylpyrrolidone. Shike discloses that examples for a pigment dispersant include polyvinylpyrrolidone (Col. 17, line 61). Cheng155B2 and Shike are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fluoropolymeric compositions. In seeking a dispersant for a fluoropolymer composition before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the dispersant disclosed by Shike to the system discloses by Cheng155B2 as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shujing Cheng et al. (US9518155B2; “Cheng155B2” hereinafter) in view of (WO-2021242657-A1; “Cheng657-A1” hereinafter, US202117926155A1 with a priority date of 05/24/2021 is used for citations) and in view of Hellring et al. (US2020176777A1, “Hellring” hereinafter).as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Damen et al. (WO2015059155A1 A1, “Damen” hereinafter; US 2016268599 A1 is being used for citations).
Regarding claim 21, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1. Cheng155B2 fails to disclose that the electrochemically active material comprises a material capable of lithium conversion comprising sulfur, LiO2, FeF2 and FeF3, Si, aluminum, tin, SnCo, Fe3O4, or combinations thereof Damen et al. discloses the addition of a Sulphur-carbon black mixture to a PVDF homopolymer solution is DMSO and further discloses the formation of a positive electrode on aluminum foil. (Damen [0225]). Cheng155B2 and Damen are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fluoropolymer containing electrode slurries. In seeking a NMP free binder with good adhesion properties for the production of high capacity lithium-sulphur batteries at relatively low temperatures before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the sulphur carbon black mixture disclosed by Damen to the electrode disclosed by Cheng155B2 as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 23, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1. Cheng155B2 fails to disclose that the electrochemically active material comprises graphite, silicon compounds, tin, tin compounds, sulfur, sulfur compounds, or a combination thereof. Damen discloses a non-electrically conducting particulate material which is able to be reduced and oxidized during battery charge/discharge cycles and discloses that the material contains Sulphur [0021]. Cheng155B2 and Damen are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fluoropolymer containing electrode slurries. In seeking a NMP free electrode slurry for a battery that has outstanding capacity values during charging and discharging before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the sulphur carbon black mixture disclosed by Damen to the electrode disclosed by Cheng155B2 as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 37, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition according to claim 1 but fails to disclose an electrical storage device comprising:(a) the electrode of claim 31;
(b) a counter electrode; and(c) an electrolyte.
Libero discloses that lithium sulfur batteries in include a positive electrode, said positive electrode containing an active material selected from elemental Sulphur, a Sulphur-based compound and mixtures thereof, an electrically conductive material and a binder, a negative electrode made of Lithium and an electrolyte (Libero: [0006]) and further discloses that Vinylidene fluoride (VDF)-based polymers are known in the art to be suitable for use as binders for the manufacture of positive electrodes for use in Lithium-Sulphur batteries (Libero: [0006]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shujing Cheng et al. (US9518155B2; “Cheng155B2” hereinafter) in view of Dong Cheng et al. (WO-2021242657-A1; “Cheng657-A1” hereinafter, US202117926155A1 with a priority date of 05/24/2021 is used for citations) and in view of Hellring et al. (US20200176777A1, “Hellring” hereinafter) as evidenced by Malgorzata Hanson et al. and Yingjun Gao et al.
Regarding claim 15, Cheng155B2 discloses the slurry composition of claim 1 and discloses a viscosity of lower than 1000 cP at room temperature (preferably at 27 °C). Cheng155B2 fails to disclose the viscosities at a shear rate of 10 s-1. Cheng155B2 further fails to disclose that the composition has a viscosity of 5,000 to 25,000 cP at 10 s-1, as measured by Anton Paar MCR 302 rheometers with a 50 mm diameter cone-plate. Hanson teaches that the standard definition, of the crosslinker is an additive which links two polymer chains by the covalent or ionic bond and discloses that the curing or crosslinking reaction changes the mechanical properties or viscosity by increasing molecular weight of a polymer by reacting two different components. Accordingly, the disclosed viscosity by Chang would substantially increase with the addition of the crosslinking agent and solid contents. As evidenced by Yingjun Gao, who similarly discloses that the higher the molecular weight (MW) of PVDF the higher the shear viscosity and discloses that the viscosity of a PVDF paste was influenced by both polymer chains and physical cross-linking and discloses that particles act like cross-linking points and thus increase the degree of cross-linking. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties with regards to the viscosity are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, as shown by the previous argument and by the similar composition of modified Cheng155B2, the claim is obvious over the prior art reference. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shujing Cheng et al. (US9518155B2; “Cheng155B2” hereinafter) in view of Cheng Donge et al. ( WO-2021242657-A1; “Cheng657-A1” hereinafter, US202117926155A1 with a priority date of 05/24/2021 is used for citations) and further in view of Hellring et al. (US20200176777 A1; “Hellring” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng155B2 discloses a slurry composition comprising: (a) a binder comprising at least one fluoropolymer; and(b) a solvent system comprising:(i) a molecule comprising a sulfoxide functional group; and(ii) a polybasic ester and/or glycol ether. Cheng155B2 does not disclose a slurry composition wherein the solvent system, comprises, consist essentially of, or consists of di-(propylene-glycol)-methyl-ether-acetate. Hellring however, discloses the use of a primary solvent and a co-solvent and further discloses that the co - solvent and relevant amounts thereof may be selected to provide a dispersion of the fluoropolymer in the organic medium at room temperature, i.e., about 23 ° C. Hellring further discloses that the co - solvent may comprise, consist or essentially of, or consist of, for example glycol ethers such as propylene-glycol-methyl-ether and later discloses propylene glycol methyl ether acetate (page 3, col. 1, line 3-4). Cheng155B2 and Hellring are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely slurry fluoropolymer containing compositions. In seeking a solvent/solvent system able to disperse the fluoropolymer at room temperature before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the solvent system disclosed by Hellring to the slurry composition disclosed by Cheng155B2 as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/S.L.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/28/2026
Prosecution Insights