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 06/17/2024, 05/08/2025, 06/02/2025, and 11/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification filed on 06/17/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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 7-22 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “has a turbidity or 1 or less”. This is indefinite as the value is not accompanied by a unit of measurement for turbidity, failing to properly limit the scope of the claim.
Claims 8-22 depend on claim 7, therefore can include similar deficiencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (JP 2008243643 A; hereinafter “Okuda;” see attached machine translation), in view of Kureha Corporation (“High Performance Binder for electrode. Kureha KF Polymer.” Brochure).
Regarding claim 7, Okuda discloses a binder composition [0019] comprising a vinylidene fluoride polymer (fluorine-based polymers; [0004]), the binder composition containing, as the vinylidene fluoride polymer, a vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and a vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) (([t]he binder consists of two or more polyvinylidene fluoride resins with different weight average molecular weights; [0019]) different from the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) (the electrode binder of the present invention exhibits good adhesion to the current collector substrate not only when the ultra-high molecular weight vinylidene fluoride polymer (B) is a copolymer having functional groups (Examples 4 to 8 below), but also when it is a homopolymer of vinylidene fluoride (Examples 1 to 3 below); [0009]), a ratio of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) in a total amount of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) in the binder composition being 25 weight% or greater and 55 weight% or less (the proportion of polyvinylidene fluoride resin with a weight-average molecular weight of 300,000 or less in the resin mixture may be 50% to 90%, [0010]).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (50% to 90% overlaps with 25 weight% or greater and 55 weight% or less) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Okuda fails to explicitly disclose that the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) are polymers satisfying the following conditions (i) to (iii):
(i) a 5 weight% N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) has a solution viscosity of 30 mPa-s or greater and 500 mPa-s or less at 250C and a shear rate of 3.83 s-1; (ii) a 5 weight% N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) has a solution viscosity of 800 mPa-s or greater and 30,000 mPa-s or less at 250C and a shear rate of 3.83 s-1; and (iii) a 5 weight% N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution of a mixture of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) that are mixed at a ratio identical to a ratio between the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) in the binder composition has a turbidity of 1 or less at 250C.
However, Okuda discloses that it is preferable that the resin mixture contains a polyvinylidene fluoride resin with a weight-average molecular weight of 300,000 or less and a polyvinylidene fluoride resin with a weight-average molecular weight of 500,000 or more; [0010].
Kureha Corporation teaches that KF-W#1100 is a polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer that has a molecular weight of 280,000, and a solution viscosity of 550 mPa-s in an N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) solution (denoted as L#1120). Further, KF-W#7300 is a polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer that has a molecular weight of >1,000,000, and a solution viscosity of 1,800 mPa-s in an N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) solution (denoted as L#7305). Therefore, the disclosed homopolymers read on the claimed limitation of solution viscosities. Examiner notes that the disclosed NMP solution of L#1120 has a 12wt%, however, applicant discloses in Specification [0059] that KF#1100 is used as homopolymer (A), therefore, it would possess the disclosed viscosity limitation in a 5wt% NMP solution.
Kureha Corporation is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polyvinylidene fluoride polymers.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymers with a molecular weight of 280,000 and >1,000,000 homopolymers of Okuda, 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.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Okuda discloses that the vinylidene fluoride polymer comprises homopolymers with a weight-average molecular weight of 300,000 or less and of 500,000 or more, specifically KF-W#1100 and KF-W#7300 (Kureha Corporation: [first table]) having the claimed solution viscosity limitations.
With respect to the limitation “a 5 weight% N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution of a mixture of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) that are mixed at a ratio identical to a ratio between the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) in the binder composition has a turbidity of 1 or less at 25 C,” it is submitted that such limitation is simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited homopolymer mixture.
Applicant discloses that the mixture at a desired ratio and a combination of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) satisfying the condition of the solution viscosities claimed in a corresponding polymer mixture would satisfy the condition of turbidity (see Instant Specification [0029]).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the ratio of the mixture and viscosities of homopolymers (A) and (B) are critical to the recited turbidity such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Okuda discloses the ratio of homopolymer (A) to the mixture of homopolymers (A) and (B) (50% to 90% overlaps 35%to 55%) and viscosities within the claimed ranges.
It is submitted that the mixture ratio and viscosities are substantially similar to the instant ratio and solution viscosities such that the turbidity would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the prior art binder would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. mixture ratio and solution viscosities, such that the turbidity would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. turbidity of 1 or less.
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the mixture ratio and respective solution viscosities. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed binder composition is so similar to the instant binder composition, that the prior art binder would also exhibit the same turbidity.
Regarding claim 8, Okuda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okuda fails to explicitly disclose a binder composition according to claim 7, wherein the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) are vinylidene fluoride homopolymers further satisfying the following condition (iv): (iv) the 5 weight% N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution of the mixture has a solution viscosity of 400 mPa-s or greater and 25,000 mPa-s or less at 250C and a shear rate of 3.83 s-1
With respect to the claimed limitations, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited homopolymer mixture.
Applicant discloses that the mixture at a desired ratio and a combination of the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (A) and the vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (B) satisfying the condition of the respective solution viscosities claimed in a corresponding polymer would satisfy the condition of mixture viscosity (see Instant Specification [0021]).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the ratio of the mixture and solution viscosities of homopolymers (A) and (B) in NMP are critical to the recited mixture viscosity such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Okuda discloses the ratio of homopolymer (A) to the mixture of homopolymers (A) and (B) (50% to 90% overlaps 35%to 55%) and viscosities within the claimed ranges.
It is submitted that the mixture ratio and viscosities are substantially similar to the instant ratio and solution viscosities such that the mixture viscosity would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the prior art binder would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. mixture ratio and viscosities, such that the mixture viscosity would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. mixture solution viscosity of 400 mPa-s or greater and 25,000 mPa-s .
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that before the effective filing date of the current invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the mixture solution ratio and viscosities. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed binder composition is so similar to the instant binder composition, that the prior art binder would also exhibit the same mixture viscosity.
Claim(s) 9-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (JP 2008243643 A; hereinafter “Okuda;” see attached machine translation), in view of Kureha Corporation (“High Performance Binder for electrode. Kureha KF Polymer.” Brochure), as applied to claims 7-8 above, and further in view of Nozoe et al. (JP 6885503 B1; hereinafter “Nozoe;” hereinafter US 2022/0102706 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 9-10, Okuda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okuda further discloses a binder composition [0011] according to claims 7 and 8.
Okuda fails to disclose the binder composition further comprising a carbon nanotube.
Nozoe teaches, directed to a binder, a conductive auxiliary agent is not particularly limited, and for example, at least one selected from the group consisting of acetylene black, . . . or carbon nanotube is used; [0112]).
Okuda and Nozoe are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion secondary batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a carbon nanotube in the binder composition disclosed by Okuda, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would impart a desired conductivity to the positive electrode material [0098], as suggested by Nozoe.
Regarding claims 11-14, Okuda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okuda further discloses an electrode mixture [0011] comprising: the binder composition (the polyvinylidene fluoride resin contained in the positive electrode mixture; [0011]) described in claims 7, 8, 9 and 10; and a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material; [0018]).
Okuda fails to disclose the positive electrode material having a primary particle size of 50 nm or greater and 600 nm or less, and having D10 of 1 µm or less and D50 of 1.6 µm or less in a volume-based particle size distribution.
Nozoe teaches, directed to a positive electrode material, a primary particle size of 50 nm or greater and 600 nm or less ([i]n the positive electrode material for lithium ion secondary batteries according to the embodiment, the average particle diameter of the carbon-coated primary particles . . . is . . . more preferably 80 nm or more and 500 nm or less; [0047]), and having D10 of 1 pm or less and D50 of 1.6 pm or less in a volume-based particle size distribution (a particle diameter corresponding to a cumulative percentage of 10% was obtained as D10, a particle diameter corresponding to a cumulative percentage of 50% was obtained as D50; [0165]; wherein: D10=0.5 µm and D50= 0.8 µm; [table 2; Example 1]).
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 positive electrode material with a particle size and volume-based particle size distribution within the range taught by Nozoe in Okuda’s invention, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the energy density [0047] and the cycle characteristics [0047]; as well as allow the preparation of a high-density positive electrode [0166], as suggested by Nozoe.
Regarding claim 15-18, Okuda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okuda further discloses an electrode (positive electrode plate; [0019]) comprising, on a current collector (positive electrode current collector; [0018], an electrode mixture layer formed from the electrode mixture (positive electrode mixed material containing a lithium-containing complex oxide and polyvinylidene fluoride resin is coated onto a positive electrode current collector; [0008]) described in claims 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Regarding claim 19-22, Okuda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Okuda further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (lithium-ion secondary battery; [0012]; a non-aqueous electrolyte is poured into the battery container; [0023]) comprising the electrode (lithium secondary battery having a positive electrode plate; [0008]) described in claims 15, 16, 17, and 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bizet et al. (US 20180355206 A1) discloses a binder containing polyvinylidene fluoride capable of being fixed to a metal and that can be used for a lithium-ion battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6:00pm.
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 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 10/09/2026
