DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 11, and 13-17 are currently pending. Claims 6-10, 12, and 18-20 are cancelled. The amended claim 1 does overcome the previously stated 102 rejection. However, the amended claim 1 does not overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1-5, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under the following new and previously stated 103 rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The amended claim 1 recites “a metallic element or semi-metallic element … wherein the metallic element or semi-metallic element is at least one selected from aluminum, calcium, or silicon, wherein the metallic element or semi-metallic element has a concentration of 150 ppm or less”. Since this range of the concentration is open-ended, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is “metallic element or the semi-metallic element has a concentration of 0”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% or less” should be changed to “0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt%”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 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).
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.
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).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondou et al (WO 2018/173839 A1) in view of Fukumine et al (EP 3324468 A1). The Kondou reference is applied to claim 2 for reasons stated above.
However, Kondou et al 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 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 (US 2015/0083975) in view of Fukumine et al (EP 3324468 A1). The Yeon reference is applied to claim 2 for reasons stated above.
However, Yeon et al 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 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 filed 12/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Examples 1-10 (11-20), prepared with the claimed combination of elements as described above, had improved shear viscosity capable of coatability. In contrast, Comparative Examples 1-2 (6-7), prepared with a higher viscosity and a higher solid content than the claimed ranges, had shear viscosities above the target range of 10 to 40 Pas, at 41 and 56 Pas, respectively. Further, Comparative Example 4 (9), prepared with a lower viscosity and a lower solid content than the claimed range, had a shear viscosity lower the target range of 10 to 40 Pas, at 5 Pas. … Regarding capacity retention, Examples 1-10 (11-20), prepared with the claimed combination of elements as described above, had improved capacity retention ranging from 77 to 89%. In contrast, Comparative Example 3 (8), prepared with a higher moisture content than the claimed range, had a lower capacity retention of 65%. Further, Comparative Example 4 (9), prepared with a lower viscosity and a lower solid content than the claimed ranges, had a lower capacity retention of 69%. … as discussed above, the claimed moisture content in addition to the claimed solid content, viscosity, and presence of a metallic or semi-metallic material has the advantageous result of higher capacity retention, and Kondou fails to teach or suggest such combination. The advantageous results provided in the specification are
commensurate in scope with the claimed invention”.
In response, as previously stated, unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention (see MPEP 716.02d). First, the amended claim 1 recites “viscosity of the pre-dispersant composition is in a range of 70 cPs to 1,600 cPs … and a moisture content of the pre-dispersant composition is 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt%, wherein a solid content in the pre-dispersant composition is in a range of 4 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the pre-dispersant composition”. However, Examples 1-10 of the present invention correspond to a viscosity of the pre-dispersant composition that is in a range of 70 cPs to 1570 cPs. Therefore, Examples 1-10 (and the corresponding Examples 11-20) do not provide sufficient evidence of unexpected results for the entire range of the viscosity recited in amended claim 1. Second, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a direct correlation between the viscosity and the shear viscosity of the positive electrode slurry so comparing Example 5 (viscosity 1,570) to Comparative Example 1 (viscosity 3,200), the increase in Shear Viscosity would have been expected and the Capacity retention of Comparative Example 1 is “Not measurable” so it would not be possible to determine if there is a decrease in Capacity retention. Similarly, with Comparative Example 2 (viscosity 13,000) an increase in Shear Viscosity would have been expected. Third, there is no criticality of the claimed moisture content that is in a range of 0.1 wt% to 0.5 wt% because Comparative Example 3 only shows a moisture content of 1 wt% so it would not be possible to determine if a lower moisture content such as 0.032 wt% (Yeon) and 0.02 wt% (Kondou) would necessarily result in decreased Capacity retention. Fourth, Kondou also discloses examples of a solid content that is 8% and 9% and 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 and the result of such modification would uniformly disperse components of the binder composition ([0066]). Lastly, the Office points out that there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed metallic element or the semi-metallic element having a concentration of 150 ppm or less because Examples 1-10 correspond to a metallic element or the semi-metallic element having a concentration of 7 ppm to 100 ppm and there are no Comparative Examples without the metallic element or semi-metallic element. So, it would not be possible to determine if there are any unexpected results such as Shear Viscosity and Capacity retention that are a direct result of the addition of metallic element or semi-metallic element.
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 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 2/4/2026