DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-07-24, the following has occurred: Claims 1-17 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The claims include limitations that are described as “optional,” as in claim 1: “(iii) optionally, an electroconductivity-imparting additive […].” Any limitation described as “optional” is only given patentable weight insofar as the structure being claimed is hypothetically capable of having such a structure. So in the case of claim 1, the limitation concerning conductive additives is only given patentable weight insofar as the claimed electrode-forming composition could hypothetically contain a conductive additive in the mixture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (US 2017/0117539 to Ogata et al.) in view of Abusleme (US 2014/0120269 to Abusleme et al.) and Abusleme2 (US 2010/0133482 to Abusleme et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogata teaches:
an electrode-forming composition with a composite negative active material comprising silicon and graphitic carbon (¶ 0041) forming powdery particles (¶ 0018)
wherein the silicon can comprise an amount 7.7-50 wt% of the powdery active material (¶ 0129)
including a binder that may be an acrylate, a vinylidene fluoride/hexafluoropropylene copolymer, or a combination (¶ 0075)
wherein the intrinsic viscosity is tuneable to achieve a desired adhesive quality (¶ 0128-0131)
wherein the solvent is N-methylpyrrolidone (¶ 0095)
Ogata does not explicitly teach:
a polymer of a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer comprising a backbone of VDF monomer, a (meth)acrylic monomer, and a perhalogenated monomer like HFP
wherein the (meth)acrylic monomer is an amount of 0.2-1.0 mol% and the HFP is an amount of 0.5-3.0 mol%
wherein the intrinsic viscosity measured in dimethylformamide is greater than 0.30 l/g
Abusleme, however, from the same field of invention, regarding binders for a lithium-ion electrode, teaches a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer with 0.5-10 mol% of HFP, 0.1-5.0 mol% MAA (paras 0030-0035) with particular examples having viscosities around 0.3 l/g (para 0121). Abusleme does not provide a specific range for the intrinsic viscosity, only providing one example viscosity value within a broader range of contemplated copolymers. Abusleme2, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a binder comprising PVDF copolymer, teaches intrinsic viscosities of up to 5 dl/g or more (paras 0043), including a specific example with an intrinsic viscosity of 3.5 dl/g (Table 1). It would have been obvious to use the binder of Abusleme as a binder in the electrode composition of Ogata, with the motivation to use a binder with resistance to high temperature and chemically aggressive environments that uses less fluorinated polymer than pure VDF (para 0003 of Abusleme). It further would have been obvious to tune the intrinsic viscosity to values within the conventional range in the art. Viscosity appears to be a results-effective variable that was fine-tuneable (para 0105 of Abusleme2) and produced expected results. 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 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Ogata teaches:
(meth)acrylic monomer containing polymers (¶ 0075)
Abusleme teaches a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer with 0.5-10 mol% of HFP, 0.1-5.0 mol% MAA (¶ 0030-0035). It would have been obvious to use the binder of Abusleme as a binder in the electrode composition of Ogata, with the motivation to use a binder with resistance to high temperature and chemically aggressive environments that uses less fluorinated polymer than pure VDF (para 0003 of Abusleme).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogata teaches:
wherein the intrinsic viscosity is tuneable to achieve a desired adhesive quality (¶ 0128-0131)
The only thing Abusleme does not teach regarding the binder, is an intrinsic viscosity greater than 0.35 but less than 0.70 l/g. The instant specification is directed towards copolymers with intrinsic viscosities which include an intrinsic viscosity of 0.33 l/g as taught in Abusleme (compare instant ¶ 0012 to the viscosities explicitly disclosed in Abusleme). There is no mention in Abusleme of an explicit intrinsic viscosity range, despite teaching how it is measured (see para 0106), strongly suggesting that it is a tunable variety, like Ogata. Abusleme teaches a broader range of polymers having variable composition (see paragraphs 0028-0047) which would be expected to have intrinsic viscosities that vary beyond the single inventive example disclosed, having the intrinsic viscosity of 0.33 l/g.
The rejection therefore cites Abusleme2, from the same inventor, directed towards similar binders, comprising a VDF/MA copolymer, even if it does not teach the terpolymer having HFP as found in Abusleme. Abusleme2 teaches that the intrinsic viscosity of a VDF-based binder suitable for use in an electrode falls within the range 0.01 l/g to 2 l/g (para 0042), or more specifically 0.15-0.5 l/g (para 0043). It would therefore have been obvious to use a terpolymer as taught in Abusleme with any intrinsic viscosity in the range of 0.15-0.5 l/g (para 0043), because such values were known in the art to be suitable for VDF-copolymer binders. 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 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogata does not explicitly teach:
a polymer of a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer comprising a backbone of VDF monomer, a (meth)acrylic monomer, and a perhalogenated monomer like HFP
wherein the (meth)acrylic monomer is an amount of 0.2-1.0 mol% and the HFP is an amount of 0.5-3.0 mol%
Abusleme teaches a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer with 0.5-10 mol% of HFP, 0.1-5.0 mol% MAA (¶ 0030-0035). ). It would have been obvious to use the binder of Abusleme as a binder in the electrode composition of Ogata, with the motivation to use a binder with resistance to high temperature and chemically aggressive environments that uses less fluorinated polymer than pure VDF (para 0003 of Abusleme).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Ogata teaches:
an electrode-forming composition with a composite negative active material comprising silicon and graphitic carbon (¶ 0041) forming powdery particles (¶ 0018)
wherein the silicon can comprise an amount 7.7-50 wt% of the powdery active material (¶ 0129)
Regarding Claim 8, Ogata teaches:
conductive additives such as carbon black (¶ 0094, 0101, 0107)
Regarding Claims 9-10, Ogata teaches:
applying the electrode composition to a current collector, drying it, then compressing it to obtain a silicon-carbon composite anode (¶ 0154)
Regarding Claim 11, Ogata teaches:
an electrode-forming composition with a composite negative active material comprising silicon and graphitic carbon (¶ 0041) forming powdery particles (¶ 0018)
a ratio of carbon to silicon in a range of about 1:1 to about 12:1 (¶ 0129)
a conductive additive in conventional ranges, including examples of 1 wt% of the electrode composition (¶ 0153)
a binder that can range from 1-20 wt% (¶ 0131)
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 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to select a composition within the claimed ranges, since Ogata teaches substantially overlapping ranges.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Ogata teaches:
electrochemical devices using a battery with an anode formed form the composition (¶ 0156, etc.)
Regarding Claims 15-16, Ogata does not teach:
the claimed PVDF-(M)AA-FM
Abusleme teaches a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer with 0.5-10 mol% of HFP, 0.1-5.0 mol% MAA (¶ 0030-0035). It would have been obvious to use the binder of Abusleme as a binder in the electrode composition of Ogata, with the motivation to use a binder with resistance to high temperature and chemically aggressive environments that uses less fluorinated polymer than pure VDF (para 0003 of Abusleme).
Regarding Claim 17, Ogata does not teach:
the claimed viscosity for a VDF-HFP-MAA copolymer
The only thing Abusleme does not teach regarding the binder, is an intrinsic viscosity greater than 0.35 but less than 0.70 l/g. The instant specification is directed towards copolymers with intrinsic viscosities which include an intrinsic viscosity of 0.33 l/g as taught in Abusleme (compare instant ¶ 0012 to the viscosities explicitly disclosed in Abusleme). There is no mention in Abusleme of an explicit intrinsic viscosity range, despite teaching how it is measured (see para 0106), strongly suggesting that it is a tunable variety, like Ogata. Abusleme teaches a broader range of polymers having variable composition (see paragraphs 0028-0047) which would be expected to have intrinsic viscosities that vary beyond the single inventive example disclosed, having the intrinsic viscosity of 0.33 l/g.
The rejection therefore cites Abusleme2, from the same inventor, directed towards similar binders, comprising a VDF/MA copolymer, even if it does not teach the terpolymer having HFP as found in Abusleme. Abusleme2 teaches that the intrinsic viscosity of a VDF-based binder suitable for use in an electrode falls within the range 0.01 l/g to 2 l/g (para 0042), or more specifically 0.15-0.5 l/g (para 0043). It would therefore have been obvious to use a terpolymer as taught in Abusleme with any intrinsic viscosity in the range of 0.15-0.5 l/g (para 0043), because such values were known in the art to be suitable for VDF-copolymer binders. 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 [R-5]).
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (US 2017/0346080 to Kano et al.) in view of Abusleme (US 2014/0120269 to Abusleme et al.) and Abusleme2 (US 2010/0133482 to Abusleme et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kano teaches:
an anode composition comprising a conventional binder, such as PVDF, PVDF-HFP copolymer, and acrylic-based polymers (abstract, ¶ 0094)
a powdery anode material comprising silicon and carbon (¶ 0015), the silicon being silicon oxide in an amount of 0.5-50 wt% (¶ 0053), including specific examples wherein the silicon oxide is 5 wt% (¶ 0144)
a slurry with an NMP, or N-methylpyrrolidone, solvent (¶ 0116)
Kano does not explicitly teach:
a polymer of a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer comprising a backbone of VDF monomer, a (meth)acrylic monomer, and a perhalogenated monomer like HFP
wherein the (meth)acrylic monomer is an amount of 0.2-1.0 mol% and the HFP is an amount of 0.5-3.0 mol%
wherein the intrinsic viscosity measured in dimethylformamide is greater than 0.35 l/g
Abusleme, however, from the same field of invention, regarding binders for a lithium-ion electrode, teaches a linear semi-crystalline VDF copolymer with 0.5-10 mol% of HFP, 0.1-5.0 mol% MAA (paras 0030-0035) with particular examples having viscosities around 0.3 l/g (para 0121). Abusleme does not provide a specific range for the intrinsic viscosity, only providing one example viscosity value within a broader range of contemplated copolymers. Abusleme2, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a binder comprising PVDF copolymer, teaches intrinsic viscosities of up to 5 dl/g or more (paras 0043), including a specific example with an intrinsic viscosity of 3.5 dl/g (Table 1). It would have been obvious to use the binder of Abusleme as a binder in the electrode composition of Kano, with the motivation to use a binder with resistance to high temperature and chemically aggressive environments that uses less fluorinated polymer than pure VDF (para 0003 of Abusleme).It further would have been obvious to tune the intrinsic viscosity to values within the conventional range in the art. Viscosity appears to be a results-effective variable that was fine-tuneable (para 0105 of Abusleme2) and produced expected results. 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 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Kano teaches:
a graphitic carbon material (¶ 0072) mixed with a silicon oxide material, the silicon oxide content being 5 wt% in several examples (Table 1)
the binder being 10 wt% (¶ 0115)
carbon black and other conventional additives added as a conductive aid (¶ 0093)
the remainder being graphitic carbon material
Kano, in other words, renders obvious using 5 wt% silicon material, conventional amounts of binder and a conductive agent, typically in the range of 0.1-10 wt%, and the remainder graphitic carbon active material. Abusleme and Abusleme2, for example, are thoroughly conventional in recommending 1-10 wt% polymer for an electrode composition (see electrode examples and claims). See also Ogata, cited above, teaching binder of <20 wt% (¶ 0131). 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 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide 5 wt% silicon material, on the order of 5 wt% polymer binder, a small amount of conductive additive, and the remainder ~89 wt% carbon, since Kano teaches such active material ratios and the binder/conductive additive amounts were conventional in the art, absent evidence of unexpected results for, e.g. 89 wt% carbon and 5 wt% polymer vs. ~90 wt% carbon and 4 wt% polymer, or the use of 1 wt% conductive additive vs 2 wt% conductive additive.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-07-24 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Applicant argues that the newly amended solvents, including such widely conventional solvents as NMP, would not have been obvious to use, because Abusleme “discloses that solvents such as n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone […] ‘are toxic and polluting solvents’” (Remarks at 8). This is not persuasive. First, Ogata and Kano teach NMP—it is conventional for anode slurries. Second, Abusleme’s teaching that such solvents can pose environmental problems does not teach away from its use—it was conventional—except insofar as one cares about that particular aspect of the production process. While a prior art reference that “teaches away” from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness, “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For a reference to teach away, it must explicitly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Likewise, the mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the other alternatives. See MPEP § 2145, D. Third, Abusleme2 teaches NMP—again, it was conventional (¶ 0069).
Arguments that the prior art does not render obvious the, now expanded, range of viscosities for the slurry are not persuasive. The animating logic of the § 103 rejections could be stated like this:
Ogata teaches an electrode composition wherein the binder is a matter of choice, to be selected from conventional binders, and conventional solvents, and wherein the slurry viscosity depends on the amount of the binder relative to the other constituents (i.e. electrode material and carbon)
Abusleme teaches a terpolymer of VDF/HFP/MAA that achieves high chemical and heat resistance while cutting back on the use of fluorinated polymers
It would have been obvious to use the terpolymer disclosed in Abusleme, which additionally discloses that the intrinsic viscosity varies depending on composition, and discloses how to measure it
Abusleme does not explicitly teach a limiting range for the intrinsic viscosity of said terpolymer. It only teaches one example with an intrinsic viscosity close to the claimed range, but it renders obvious a class of terpolymer that exceeds that example, including a terpolymer with more or less HFP/AA than the specific example disclosed in paragraphs 0113 and 0121
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with a broader conventional range for the intrinsic viscosity of a VDF copolymer binder for use in a lithium battery—Abusleme2, from the same inventor as Abusleme, teaches a conventional VDF copolymer that is similar to that in Abusleme, although it is not specifically a terpolymer having HFP. It does, however, indicate that binders for use in lithium batteries, including VDF-based copolymer binders, were known to have intrinsic viscosities of up to 5.0 dl/g
It therefore would have been obvious to use a terpolymer binder like that disclosed in Abusleme with an intrinsic viscosity of up to 5.0 dl/g, with the motivation, for example, to provide a more viscous binder to thicken an electrode slurry to the desired level with comparatively less binder
Applicant’s pointing to the examples of Abusleme2 that do not fall within the claimed compositional range are simply inapposite to the logic of the rejection, which instead relies upon Abusleme2 for teaching an overlapping range. In any case, Abusleme itself teaches examples with intrinsic viscosities of 3.3 dl/g (¶ 0121). Arguments that instant comparative examples, which use VDF-AA rather than VDF-AA-HFP terpolymers, have different properties despite similar viscosities is not a persuasive argument against an obviousness rejection which finds that VDF-AA-HFP is an obvious polymer to use, and then asks what the prior art teaches about the intrinsic viscosity range. The comparative examples have nothing to say about VDF-AA-HFP outside the claimed viscosity range, nor has Applicant demonstrated that the claimed range, which overlaps the intrinsic viscosity range disclosed or implied by Abusleme and Abusleme2, demonstrates unexpected results over a majority of the range disclosed in those prior art documents. 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 [R-5]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights