DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 11, and 13-17 are currently pending. Claims 6-10, 12, and 18-20 are cancelled. The previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn. The amended claim 1 does overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1-5, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon et al (US 2015/0083975, cited in IDS dated 4/23/24) in view of Obrecht (US 2008/0293889) and as evidenced by “Certificate of Analysis of BM-720H, ZEON Corporation, Energy Materials Division, May 12, 2016, 4 pages”.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17, Yeon et al discloses a lithium battery “1” (lithium secondary battery) comprising a cathode “3” (positive electrode), an anode “2” (negative electrode), a separator “4”, and an organic electrolyte solution; where the cathode comprises a cathode active material slurry (positive electrode slurry composition) comprising:
cathode active material (positive electrode active material),
carbon black (conductive agent),
a first fluorine containing binder (binder); and
a binder solution (pre-dispersant composition) comprising:
a hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene binder (hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber) dispersed in NMP (N-methylpyrrolidone / amide-based dispersion medium / solvent), BM-720H, which has a viscosity of 1520 mPa-s (cPs), a water concentration (moisture content) of 320 ppm (0.032 wt%), and a solid content of 8.0 wt% as evidenced by the Certificate of Analysis of BM-720H;
wherein hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene binder comprises a repeating unit of an acrylonitrile-derived structure represented by Formula 1; a repeating unit including a repeating unit of hydrogenated butadiene-derived structures represented by Formula 1; and a repeating unit of a butadiene-derived structure represented by Formula 4 ([0105],[0110]-[0112]).
However, Yeon et al does not expressly teach a moisture content of the pre-dispersant composition that is 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt%”.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Yeon binder solution to include a moisture content of the pre-dispersant composition that is 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed a moisture content of the pre-dispersant composition. Comparative Example 3 does not show criticality of moisture content of 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% because there are no examples of less than 0.1 wt% (Yeon).
However, Yeon et al does not expressly teach a metallic element or semi-metallic element that is at least one selected from aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), or silicon (Si), wherein the metallic or the semi-metallic element has a concentration in a range of 7 ppm to 150 ppm, wherein Al is included in a concentration of 100 ppm or less, wherein Ca is included in a concentration in a range of 7 ppm to 60 ppm, and wherein Si is included in a concentration of 30 ppm or less (claim 1).
Obrecht discloses a nitrile rubber that is a copolymer of acrylonitrile and butadiene, wherein the nitrile rubber after washing conditions has Ca (calcium / metallic element) contents in the range from 171 ppm to 830 ppm ([0045],[0212],[0213]). Examiner’s note: As disclosed in para. [0076] of the specification of the present application, “The metallic element or semi-metallic element is a component derived from a coagulant, an antifoaming agent, or an anti-blocking agent, which is added during the preparation of a rubber by emulsion polymerization or the preparation of a hydrogenated nitrile-butadiene rubber through a hydrogenation reaction, wherein it may not be partially removed after the polymerization or hydrogenation reaction, but may remain in the hydrogenated nitrile-butadiene rubber”. Since the metallic element of the present invention is a part of the nitrile-butadiene rubber that is not removed by the washing process, the Office takes the position that the calcium content taught by Obrecht is equivalent to the metallic element of the present invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yeon hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene binder to include Ca contents in the range from 171 ppm to 830 ppm in order to provide a nitrile rubber which has a good storage stability and at the same time unchanged good processing properties, i.e. a good vulcanization profile ([0025]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yeon/Obrecht hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene binder to include Ca that is included in a concentration in a range of 7 ppm to 60 ppm because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The calcium content is a result effective variable of optimizing the storage stability of the nitrile rubber. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed concentration of calcium because the specification does not provide any examples of calcium concentrations greater than 60 ppm. In addition, Comparative Examples 1-4 corresponding to Comparative Examples 6-9 show viscosity, solid content, or moisture content outside the ranges recited in claim 1. So, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether the change in shear viscosity and capacity retention is due to the calcium concentration.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al (WO 2018/173839 A1) using (EP 3605676 A1) as an equivalent English translation, in view of Obrecht (US 2008/0293889).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17, Kondou et al discloses a secondary battery (lithium secondary battery) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte solution, where the positive electrode (positive electrode slurry composition) comprises:
an electrode active material,
a conductive material (conductive agent),
a dispersant (binder) such as polyvinylidene fluoride,
a solvent, and
a binder composition (pre-dispersant composition) comprising:
hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber) and NMP (N-methylpyrrolidone / amide-based dispersion medium), wherein viscosity of the binder composition is 1,400 mPa-s (1,400 cPs), a water concentration (moisture content) of 200 ppm (0.02 wt%), and 12% of solid content;
wherein hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber comprises a repeating unit of an acrylonitrile-derived structure represented by Formula 1; a repeating unit including a repeating unit of hydrogenated butadiene-derived structures represented by Formula 1; and a repeating unit of a butadiene-derived structure represented by Formula 4; wherein the solid content concentration of the binder composition is preferably not less than 5 mass% and not more than 85 mass% from a viewpoint of uniformly dispersing ([0063],[0066],[0088],[0104],[0115]).
However, Kondou et al does not expressly teach a moisture content of the pre-dispersant composition that is 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% and a solid content in the pre-dispersant composition that is in a range of 4 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the pre-dispersant composition (claim 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kondou binder composition to include a moisture content of the pre-dispersant composition that is 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% and a solid content in the pre-dispersant composition that is in a range of 4 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the pre-dispersant composition because in a 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed moisture content and solid content in the pre-dispersant composition. Comparative Example 1 does not show criticality of solid content of 4 wt% and 10 wt% because the viscosity is also outside of the range of 70 cPs to 1,600 cPs. Comparative Example 3 does not show criticality of moisture content of 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% because there are no examples of less than 0.1 wt% (Kondou).
However, Kondou et al does not expressly teach a metallic element or semi-metallic element that is at least one selected from aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), or silicon (Si), wherein the metallic or the semi-metallic element has a concentration in a range of 7 ppm to 150 ppm, wherein Al is included in a concentration of 100 ppm or less, wherein Ca is included in a concentration in a range of 7 ppm to 60 ppm, and wherein Si is included in a concentration of 30 ppm or less (claim 1).
Obrecht discloses a nitrile rubber that is a copolymer of acrylonitrile and butadiene, wherein the nitrile rubber after washing conditions has Ca (calcium) contents in the range from 171 ppm to 830 ppm ([0045],[0212],[0213]). Examiner’s note: As disclosed in para. [0076] of the specification of the present application, “The metallic element or semi-metallic element is a component derived from a coagulant, an antifoaming agent, or an anti-blocking agent, which is added during the preparation of a rubber by emulsion polymerization or the preparation of a hydrogenated nitrile-butadiene rubber through a hydrogenation reaction, wherein it may not be partially removed after the polymerization or hydrogenation reaction, but may remain in the hydrogenated nitrile-butadiene rubber”. Since the metallic element of the present invention is a part of the nitrile-butadiene rubber that is not removed by the washing process, the Office takes the position that the calcium content taught by Obrecht is equivalent to the metallic element of the present invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kondou hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber to include Ca contents in the range from 171 ppm to 830 ppm in order to provide a nitrile rubber which has a good storage stability and at the same time unchanged good processing properties, i.e. a good vulcanization profile ([0025]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kondou/Obrecht hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene binder to include Ca that is included in a concentration in a range of 7 ppm to 60 ppm because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The calcium content is a result effective variable of optimizing the storage stability of the nitrile rubber. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed concentration of calcium because the specification does not provide any examples of calcium concentrations outside of the range of 7 ppm to 60 ppm.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al in view of Obrecht as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fukumine et al (EP 3324468 A1).
However, Kondou et al as modified by Obrecht does not expressly teach a weight ratio of the repeating unit of the acrylonitrile-derived structure:the repeating unit of the hydrogenated butadiene-derived structure that is in a range of 10:90 to 50:50 (claim 3).
Fukumine et al discloses a copolymer including an alkylene structural unit and nitrile group-containing monomer unit, wherein the copolymer includes the alkylene structural unit (hydrogenated butadiene-derived structure) in a proportion of at least 40 mass% and not more than 80 mass% (claims 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kondou/Obrecht binder composition to include a weight ratio of the repeating unit of the acrylonitrile-derived structure : the repeating unit of the hydrogenated butadiene-derived structure of 20:80 to 60:40 in order to sufficiently inhibit sedimentation of components such as the electrode active material in production of the slurry composition for a secondary battery electrode ([0099]).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeon et al in view of Obrecht as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fukumine et al (EP 3324468 A1).
However, Yeon et al as modified by Obrecht does not expressly teach a weight ratio of the repeating unit of the acrylonitrile-derived structure:the repeating unit of the hydrogenated butadiene-derived structure that is in a range of 10:90 to 50:50 (claim 3).
Fukumine et al discloses a copolymer including an alkylene structural unit and nitrile group-containing monomer unit, wherein the copolymer includes the alkylene structural unit (hydrogenated butadiene-derived structure) in a proportion of at least 40 mass% and not more than 80 mass% (claims 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Yeon/Obrecht binder solution to include a weight ratio of the repeating unit of the acrylonitrile-derived structure : the repeating unit of the hydrogenated butadiene-derived structure of 20:80 to 60:40 in order to sufficiently inhibit sedimentation of components such as the electrode active material in production of the slurry composition for a secondary battery electrode ([0099]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 11, and 13-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/14/2026
Prosecution Insights