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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 7-10, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki et al. (WO 2016/171028A) in view of Matsuzaki (2) (WO2016/158964) and Saito et al. (WO2016/043225). The U.S. versions of the references Matsuzaki et al. (US 2018/0102542), Matsuzaki (2) (US 2018/0108917) and Saito et al. (US 2017/0298205) are used as the English translations and are referenced below.
The applied reference Matsuzaki et al. (WO 2016/171028A) has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. See also MPEP § 2155.01 and 2155.02.
Examiner notes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by perfecting the foreign priority claim and invoking exceptions under both 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuzaki et al. teaches a binder for a secondary battery electrode (Para. [0034]), the binder contains an acrylic crosslinked polymer and salt thereof (i.e. containing a crosslinked polymer or salt thereof), wherein the crosslinked polymer is manufactured by precipitation polymerizing (Para. [0008]) and obtained in powder form (Para. [0122]) (i.e. wherein the crosslinked polymer or salt thereof is a powder synthesized by precipitation polymerization) having water swellability (Para. [0041]) (i.e. wherein the crosslinked polymer is configured to have a water swelling degree), the acrylic crosslinked polymer contains component (a) which is an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer and component (b) which is an ethylenically unsaturated monomer lacking carboxylic groups wherein component (a) include acrylic acid (Para. [0039]) and component (b) includes dimethyl acrylamide (Para. [0042]) (i.e. N,N-dimethyl acrylamide) wherein component (a) is 50 to 90% by weight as a percentage of the total constituent monomer of the acrylic crosslinked polymer (Para. [0041], lines 1-5)(i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of the crosslinked polymer has a structural unit derived from an acrylic acid monomer in an amount of 80 mass% or more and 100 mass% or less of the total structural units of the crosslinked polymer) and component (b) is in the range of 10% to 70% by weight as a percentage of the total constituent monomers (Para. [0046]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of the crosslinked polymer has a structural unit derived from an at least one compound selected from the group consisting of N,N-dimethyl acrylamide and isobornyl acrylate in an amount of 0 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less of the total structural units of the crosslinked polymer) and the crosslinked polymer having degree of neutralization of 90 mol% (Para. [0027]).
Matsuzaki et al. does not explicitly teach a water swelling degree at pH 8 nor at pH 4.
However, Matsuzaki (2) teaches a binder comprising a crosslinked polymer (Para. [0008]), that teaches the crosslinked polymer swells in water to become a microgel (i.e. the polymer absorbs water) and the interactions of the microgel differ depending on the water swelling degree which is controlled by the degree of crosslinking of the polymer, and limited water-swelling ability (i.e. the ability of the crosslinked polymer to absorb water) causes a decline in viscosity and binding properties may be insufficient (Para. [0062]) (i.e. water swelling ability affects viscosity and binding properties), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the water swelling ability (at both pH 8 and pH 4) in order to achieve desirable viscosity, dispersion stabilization and sufficient binding properties (Para. [0062]). Thus, both of the claimed variables of the water swelling degree at pH 8 or pH 4 being measured in pH 8 or pH 4 water and calculated by the formula claimed in instant claim 1 (which quantifies the ability of the crosslinked polymer to absorb water) are result effective variables (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying a water swelling degree at pH 8 and pH 4 to achieve a water swelling degree at pH 8 of 25.1 or more and 91.9 or less and at pH 4 of 8.8 or more and 21.5 or less would be discovering the optimum range through routine experimentation.
It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Matsuzaki et al. does not teach an average particle diameter is greater than 1.02 micrometers and 1.54 micrometers or less as the volume-based median diameter.
However, Saito et al. teaches polymer microparticles produced using monomers such as acrylic acid (Para. [0072]) wherein a crosslinked polymer is produced (Para. [0112]) and neutralized (Para. [0101]) wherein the crosslinked polymer microparticles (Para. [0139]) have a volume average particle diameter of preferably 1.0 to 2.0 micrometers (Para. [0140]) (overlapping with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average particle diameter Matsuzaki et al. as modified above to incorporate the teaching of an average particle diameter of 1.0 micrometer or 2.0 micrometers as it would enable the polymer microparticles to be smoothly produced with favorable productivity and at low cost without causing aggregation (Para. [0011], [0012], [0140]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Matsuzaki et al. further teaches an electrode mixture layer composition for a secondary battery (i.e. a secondary battery electrode mixture layer composition) comprising the binder (i.e. the binder according to claim 1), an active material and water (Para. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Matsuzaki et al. further teaches silicon (i.e. a silicon material) used as negative electrode active materials (Para. [0095]).
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Matsuzaki et al. further teaches a secondary battery electrode including a mixture layer formed from the electrode mixture layer composition for a secondary battery on the surface of a collector (Para. [0030]) (i.e. a secondary battery electrode comprising a mixture layer formed from the secondary battery electrode mixture layer composition according to claim 7 on a surface of a collector).
Regarding Claim 10, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Matsuzaki et al. further teaches a secondary battery electrode including mixture layer formed from the electrode mixture layer composition for a secondary battery on the surface of a collector (Para. [0030]) (i.e. a secondary battery electrode comprising a mixture layer formed from the secondary battery electrode mixture layer composition according to claim 8 on a surface of a collector).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Matsuzaki et al. further teaches a secondary battery electrode including a mixture layer formed from the electrode mixture layer composition on a surface of a collector (Para. [0030]) containing the binder (Para. [0029]) (i.e. a secondary battery electrode comprising a mixture layer containing the binder according to claim 1 on a surface of a collector).
Regarding Claim 19, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Matsuzaki et al. further teaches negative electrode active materials include carbon materials (Para. [0094]) (i.e. further comprising a carbon material as a negative electrode active material).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 19 as explained above,
Matsuzaki et al. further teaches a secondary battery electrode including a mixture layer formed from the electrode mixture layer composition for a secondary battery on the surface of a collector (Para. [0030]) (i.e. a secondary battery electrode comprising a mixture layer formed from the secondary battery electrode mixture layer composition according to claim 19 on a surface of a collector).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki et al. (WO 2016/171028A) in view of Matsuzaki (2) (WO2016/158964) and Saito et al. (WO2016/043225) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masuoka et al. (WO2014171415A). The English machine translation of Masuoka et al. provided in a previous Office Action is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 2, Matsuzaki et al. as modified by Matsuzaki (2) and Saito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Matsuzaki et al. does not teach a particle size distribution of 1.2 or less.
However, Masuoka et al. teaches a water-soluble resin binder (lines 236-40) such as methacrylic emulsion comprising a crosslinked polymer (lines 265-266) having a structural unit derived from ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer (such as methacrylic acid) (lines 434-439) wherein the water-soluble resin binder forms a base layer of an electrode for an electricity storage device (lines 92-106) which is a secondary battery (line 978) (i.e. a crosslinked binder for a secondary battery electrode), wherein a particle size distribution of the polymer becomes narrow (i.e. closer to zero) and thus, when used as a binder for a secondary battery electrode, the electrolyte solution resistance can be improved (lines 492-500) (i.e. the particle size distribution of the binder affects the electrolyte resistance), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the particle size distribution in order to achieve improved electrolyte resistance (lines 492-500). Thus, the teaching of a particle size distribution of a crosslinked polymer (obtained by dividing a volume average particle size measured in the aqueous medium by the number average particle size measured together with the average particle diameter) is recognized as a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the range of a particle size distribution obtained by diving a volume average particle size measured in the aqueous medium by the number average particle size to a particle size distribution of 1.2 or less would be discovering the optimum or workable range through routine experimentation.
It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the swelling degree at pH 4 and/or pH 8 should not be treated as a single variable and the swelling behavior under acidic and/pr alkaline condition will reflect different states of the polymer network, none of the cited references disclose, suggest or imply any relationship between pH and water swelling degree or that it would be possible or desirable to optimize a binder in order to achieve the claimed water swelling degree at pH 4 and/or pH 8, generation conditions are not disclosed, random experimentation would be necessary, and there is no reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The swelling degree at pH 4 and the swelling degree at pH 8 (i.e. two separate variables) are both recognized as a result-effective variable as both are measuring water swelling ability (regardless of the pH the water swelling degree is measured at). As Matsuzaki (2) teaches water-swelling ability (i.e. the ability of the crosslinked polymer to absorb water) causes a decline in viscosity and binding properties may be insufficient (Para. [0062]) (i.e. water swelling ability affects viscosity and binding properties), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the water swelling ability (at both pH 8 and pH 4, respectively) towards the claimed ranges in order to achieve desirable viscosity, dispersion stabilization and sufficient binding properties (Para. [0062]) (i.e. reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized). The general conditions (i.e. water swelling ability) of a binder comprising a crosslinked polymer (Para. [0008]), that teaches the crosslinked polymer swells in water to become a microgel (i.e. the polymer absorbs water) are disclosed in Matsuzaki (2). Matsuzaki (2) further teaches the degree of water swelling which is controlled by the degree of crosslinking of the polymer (Para. [0062]) and thus, modifying the water swelling degree would be routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues hindsight reconstruction is required to arrive at the claimed binder.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights