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 .
Claim Amendments
Claims 1, 9, 18, and 20 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 17 and 19 stand withdrawn. Claim 21 is newly added. No new matter is added.
Response to arguments
The objection to claims 18 and 20 is withdrawn in light of amendments.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited reference does not teach or suggest “dissolved”. Regarding this limitation “wherein the polymer binder of which the adsorption rate is less than 60% is dissolved in the dispersion medium”, Mimura teaches ([0076-0077]) that the binder is dispersed in the “dissolving agent”. Examiner notes that because the solvent is a “dissolving agent”, a person of ordinary skill would expect at least a small portion of the polymer to be dissolved. Further, Mimura does not explicitly state that the polymer binder is dissolved, the dispersion of the solid electrolyte material in binder B2 with heptane is comparable to Example s4 (methacrylate binder in heptane) of the instant invention (see Table 2-4). Because the chemistry of Mimura’s dispersion is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, example s4, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Mimura’s polymer will be dissolved in the “dissolving agent”. While Mimura does recite binder particles, that recitation does not require that all of the binder remains in a particle state.
Applicant further argues that “the reference Examiner’s rejection relies excessively on the Applicant’s own experimental results with respect to 5% adsorption rate, SP value, contact angle, and adsorption rate to active materials.” This is not persuasive. MPEP 2141.02 (III) states "discovery of the cause of a problem… does not always result in a patentable invention.... [A] different situation exists where the solution is obvious from prior art which contains the same solution for a similar problem." In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979) (emphasis in original). The use of the claimed composition has been rendered obvious by Mimura. Applicant’s claimed discovery that a “relationship between the inorganic solid electrolyte or the like and the binder is conceived to be one of the important factors for the dispersion stability and the handleability” (Instant specification at [0005]) does not convert a composition already known in the art into a patentable invention. Similarly, Applicant’s measurement of properties which may not have been reported in the prior reference (e.g. 5% adsorption rate, SP value, contact angle, and adsorption rate to active materials) a composition already known in the art into a patentable invention. Said differently, the composition has been rendered obvious. Therefore, the properties measured are not patentable.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 includes the limitation “wherein a polymer that forms the polymer binder of which the adsorption rate is less than 60%...” If this adsorption rate is with respect to the inorganic solid electrolyte, Applicant is respectfully requested to include this in the claim, for the purpose of clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-16, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (US 20160204465 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mimura teaches an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition (abstract) comprising:
an inorganic solid electrolyte exhibiting an ion conductivity for a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table; (abstract: “an inorganic solid electrolyte (A) having conductivity of an ion of metal belong to Group 1 or 2 in the periodic table”)
a polymer binder; (abstract)
a dispersion medium, (abstract)
Mimura is silent on wherein the polymer binder includes a polymer binder of which an adsorption rate with respect to the inorganic solid electrolyte in the dispersion medium is less than 60%. However, at [0229] Mimura teaches synthesizing a resin using a heptane solvent and both methyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate monomers. After processing as taught by Mimura, this produces a poly methyl methacrylate dispersion in heptane (binder b1). At Table 2, binder B1 is used to form a dispersion with a solid electrolyte material.
Examiner notes that Mimura’s dispersion of solid electrolyte material in binder B2 with heptane is comparable to Example s4 (methacrylate binder in heptane) of the instant invention (see Table 2-4, which reports a 5% adsorption value for the secondary electrolyte). Because the chemistry of Mimura’s dispersion is substantially similar to that of example s4 of the instant invention, it therefore will meet the adsorption rate limitation, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the polymer binder of which the adsorption rate is less than 60% is dissolved in the dispersion medium”, Mimura teaches ([0076-0077]) that the binder is dispersed in the “dissolving agent”. Examiner notes that because the solvent is a “dissolving agent”, a person of ordinary skill would expect at least a small portion of the polymer to be dissolved. Further, while Mimura does not explicitly state that the polymer binder is dissolved, the dispersion of the solid electrolyte material in binder B2 with heptane is comparable to Example s4 (methacrylate binder in heptane) of the instant invention (see Table 2-4). Because the chemistry of Mimura’s dispersion is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, example s4, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Mimura’s polymer will be dissolved in the “dissolving agent”.
Regarding claim 4, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches wherein a polymer contains a constitutional component having a functional group selected from the following: ([0012]) a hydroxy group, a carboxy group, ([0050]) amino, sulfonic acid (sulfo), phosphoric acid (phosphate group); ([0124]) a heterocyclic group, ([0125]) amino group; ([0128]) an ether bond, an imino group, an ester bond, a sulfonyl group, ([0132]) an amide bond, a urethane bond, a urea bond, an aryl group, ([0162]) a perfluoroalkane (a fluoroalkyl group). These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 5, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura does not explicitly teach wherein a content of the constitutional component having the functional group selected from the Group (a) of functional groups is 0.01% to 50% by mole. However, Mimura teaches ([0012]) “a ratio of a repeating unit derived from the macromonomer (X) in the polymer forming the binder particles (B) is 50 mass % or lower or 1 mass % or greater.” Examiner notes that the functional group weight range of Mimura overlaps the functional group mole ratio of the instant claim limitation, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0118]) a linking substituent T which may be an ethyl group, therefore meeting the instant claim limitation. At ([0009]) Mimura teaches that the disclosed polymer chemistries have suitable binding properties for an all solid state battery. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select an ethyl group from Mimura’s list of suitable candidates, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating an all solid state battery.
Regarding claim 7, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0132]) wherein the polymer has a urethane linking group. At ([0009]) Mimura teaches that the disclosed polymer chemistries have suitable binding properties for an all solid state battery. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the urethane group from Mimura’s list of suitable candidates, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating an all solid state battery.
Regarding claim 8, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0141]) a blend of polymers. Mimura further teaches ([0059]) that R2 may be fluorine. (reads on “a fluorine-based polymer”) At ([0048]) Mimura teaches that based on the functional groups of the binder, “the collector becomes strong, binding properties increase, and thus an effect of decreasing
resistance in an interface can be expected.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select more than one polymer as taught by Mimura, in order to achieve beneficial properties of more than one type of polymer, with a reasonable expectation of achieving a strong collector, increased binding properties increase, and thus decreased resistance in an interface.
Regarding claim 9, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura does not explicitly teach a contact angle of the dispersion medium with respect to a polymer film prepared from a polymer that forms the polymer binder of which the adsorption rate is less than 60% is 40 degrees or less.
The dispersion of solid electrolyte material in binder B2 with heptane (as set forth in claim 1 and incorporated herein by reference) is comparable to Example s4 (methacrylate binder in heptane) of the instant invention (see Table 2-4). Because the chemistry of Mimura’s dispersion is substantially similar in chemistry to that of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Mimura’s dispersion will also meet the limitations of claim 1 with respect to contact angle.
Regarding claim 10, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0141]) a blend of polymers, and teaches at ([0011]) that the polymer may include a macromonomer which includes a straight chain hydrocarbon structure. (reads on at least one kind of a polymer … a hydrocarbon- based polymer) At ([0048]) Mimura teaches that based on the functional groups of the binder, “the collector becomes strong, binding properties increase, and thus an effect of decreasing resistance in an interface can be expected.” At [0100] Mimura discloses that the macromonomer preferable includes … a straight chain hydrocarbon structure unit having 6 or more carbon atoms. “if the macromonomer making a side chain has a straight chain hydrocarbon structure unit S, affinity with a solvent increases and thus an effect of increasing dispersion stability can be expected.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add a macromonomer having a straight chain hydrocarbon structure unit having 6 or more carbon atoms to the dispersion of modified Mimura, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving dispersion stability and increasing binding properties.
Regarding claim 11, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0118]) a linking substituent T which may be an ethyl group (reads on a constitutional component represented by any one of Formulae (1-1)) and at ([0011]) that the polymer may include a macromonomer which includes a straight chain hydrocarbon structure. (reads on at least one kind of a polymer … a hydrocarbon- based polymer). At ([0048]) Mimura teaches that based on the functional groups of the binder, “the collector becomes strong, binding properties increase, and thus an effect of decreasing resistance in an interface can be expected.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select more than one polymer as taught by Mimura, in order to achieve beneficial properties of more than one type of polymer, with a reasonable expectation of achieving a strong collector, increased binding properties increase, and thus decreased resistance in an interface.
Regarding claim 12, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches (abstract) a particulate binder having an average particle diameter of 10 nm to 1,000 nm, which falls within the range (1 nm to 1,000 nm) of the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0012]) the composition further comprising an active material.
Regarding claim 14, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura does not explicitly teach an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition wherein the polymer binder of which the adsorption rate is less than 60% has an adsorption rate of 90% or less with respect to the active material.
However, Mimura discloses the dispersion of solid electrolyte material in binder B2 with heptane (as set forth in claim 1 and incorporated herein by reference) which is comparable to Example s4 (methacrylate binder in heptane) of the instant invention (see Table 2-4, which reports adsorption of 68% onto the active material of example s4). Because the chemistry of Mimura’s dispersion is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Mimura’s dispersion will also meet the limitations of claim 1 with respect to polymer adsorption onto active material.
Regarding claim 15, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0255-0258]) the use of an acetylene black conductive agent in an electrode composition. (reads on an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition further comprising a conductive auxiliary agent.)
Regarding claim 16, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0027]) an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition to wherein the inorganic solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 18, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0220]) an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition sheet for an all-solid state secondary battery comprising a layer in which a film is formed from the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches ([0223]) all-solid state secondary battery comprising, in the following order: a positive electrode active material layer; a solid electrolyte layer; and a negative electrode active material layer, wherein at least one layer of the positive electrode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, or the negative electrode active material layer is a layer in which a film is formed by the manufacturing method for a sheet for an all-solid state secondary battery according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Mimura further teaches a inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition (abstract) having a polymer binder (abstract: polymer particles combined with a macromonomer). Mimura teaches [0011] “a polymer forming the binder particle includes a repeating unit derived from a monomer selected from a (meth)acrylic acid monomer, a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer, and (meth)acrylonitrile” which meets the limitation the polymer has a constitutional component represented by Formulae (1-1), wherein R1 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group,
Regarding the limitation wherein R2 represents a group having a hydrocarbon group having 4 or more carbon atoms, Mimura discloses [0048] that the main chain preferably has at least one from the group of functional groups (b). At [0010] Mimura discloses the combination of a polymer and a macromonomer, and at [0100] Mimura discloses that the macromonomer preferable includes … a straight chain hydrocarbon structure unit having 6 or more carbon atoms. “if the macromonomer making a side chain has a straight chain hydrocarbon structure unit S, affinity with a solvent increases and thus an effect of increasing dispersion stability can be expected.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add a macromonomer having a straight chain hydrocarbon structure unit having 6 or more carbon atoms to Mimura’s inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, with a reasonable expectation successfully improving dispersion stability, thus rendering obvious the selection of a hydrocarbon group having 4 or more carbon atoms for R2.
Mimura is silent on the adsorption rate of the polymer, and therefore does not explicitly teach that the polymer binder has an adsorption rate of less than 60% with respect to the inorganic solid electrolyte in the dispersion medium is less than 60%. However, at [0229] Mimura teaches synthesizing a resin using a heptane solvent and both methyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate monomers. After processing as taught by Mimura, this produces a poly methyl methacrylate dispersion in heptane (binder b1). At Table 2, binder B1 is used to form a dispersion with a solid electrolyte material.
Examiner notes that Mimura’s dispersion of solid electrolyte material in binder B2 with heptane is comparable to Example s4 (methacrylate binder in heptane) of the instant invention (see Table 2-4, which reports a 5% adsorption value for the secondary electrolyte). Because the chemistry of Mimura’s dispersion is substantially similar to that of example s4 of the instant invention, it therefore will meet the adsorption rate limitation, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (US 20160204465 A1), with evidentiary support from Mihara (US 20170129780 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mimura teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Mimura does not explicitly teach wherein a difference in SP value between a polymer that forms the polymer binder of which the adsorption rate is less than 60% and the dispersion medium is 3 or less.
While Mimura does not explicitly teach this limitation, the dispersion of solid electrolyte material in binder B2 with heptane (as set forth in claim 1 and incorporated herein by reference) is comparable to Example s4 (methacrylate binder in heptane) of the instant invention (see Table 2-4, which reports values of 19.1 and 18.0 for example s4). Because the chemistry of Mimura’s dispersion is substantially similar to that of the instant invention, example s4, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Mimura’s dispersion will also meet the limitations of claim 1 with respect to SP values.
Mihara, which discloses a resin (polymer) dissolved in a solvent, provides evidence at [0089] that “It is known that the smaller the absolute value of the difference from the average of the SP values, the higher the dissolving properties.” Mihara further states “In view of this, the absolute value of the difference from the average of the SP values is preferably 3.0 or less, most preferably 2.0 or less.” Mihara further contemplates [0083] the use of a solvent to remove a wide range of polymers including methacrylic resins (this is comparable to the chemistry of a poly methyl methacrylate in solvent of Mimura.) Examiner notes that the successful removal of a polymer from a continuous porous structure (Mihara abstract and FIG. 1) necessitates dissolution of the polymer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/24/2025
Prosecution Insights