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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the teachings of Alarifi.
In regards to the limitation which the requires that the block chain having a CLogP value of 1 or less contains a constitutional component derived from a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound, as discussed above Makino discloses structure where the CLogP<1 component is methacrylic acid. Here, the language of “derived from” is interpreted as requiring any component which is or can be derived from a methacrylic acid ester component, based on page 25 of the specification, which reads “a constitutional component represented by Formula (1) and a constitutional component of a short-chain alkyl group, the constitutional component being derived from a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound.”). There is no additional structure given to “derived from” based on the specification.
Accordingly, based on the teaching of Alarifi, who teaches that methacrylic acid copolymers can be produced by the esterification of polymethacrylic acid (Column 4 lines 47-51, “The present invention relates to a method for producing acrylic or methacrylic acid/acrylate or methacrylate ester copolymers or terpolymers by esterification of polyacrylic acid or polymethacrylic acid with several alcohols (aliphatics and aromatics) using the pervaporation technique.”), methacrylic acid copolymer units are therefore a constitutional component which can be derived from a methacrylic acid ester compound.
Additionally, in regards to the rejection on the grounds of indefiniteness of claims 1 and 4 in regards to formulas 1 and 3, based on the applicant’s explanation presented in the arguments, said portions of the claims are found to be definite, and the rejections of those claims on the grounds of indefiniteness are withdrawn.
Additionally, the applicant’s arguments regarding the amendment to claim 8 are persuasive, and based on said amendment the rejection of claim 8 on the grounds of indefiniteness is withdrawn.
Additionally, the applicant’s arguments in regards to the amendment of claim 1’s language “wherein a block polymer is contained to constitute the binder particles” to “wherein the binder particles include a block polymer” are persuasive, and the rejection of this portion of claim 1 on the grounds of indefiniteness is withdrawn.
Additionally, the applicant’s amendments to claim 12 overcome the objection to the claims presented in the previous office action of record, and said objection is accordingly withdrawn.
Additionally, the applicant presents that based on their specification’s paragraph 0053, it can be shown that the above feature produces an unexpected result, and is thus nonobvious over the cited art. Here, this argument has been fully considered, but is not persuasive, as it cannot be evaluated under the standards presented for arguments of unexpected results in MPEP section 716.02. As presented in MPEP section 716.02(b), the applicant is responsible for establishing that the differences are unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance “The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration.")”.
Here, where the argument is a conclusory statement without supporting evidence, it cannot be a basis for determining unexpected results. For an argument of unexpected results, the applicant is required to present and explain data that is evidence of nonobviousness "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Section 716 of the MPEP includes further information regarding arguments of unexpected results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino (WO 2017030154 A1, with EPO machine translation used for citation purposes), with supporting information of physical properties taken from Chemeo (Chemical properties of 2-Propenoic acid), supported by Wildman et al. (Prediction of Physicochemical Parameters by Atomic Calculations), further in view of Alarifi (US 9321868 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Makino is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition (Abstract, “A solid electrolyte composition which contains a block polymer”) comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte having an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to group 1 or group 2 in the periodic table (Abstract, “and an inorganic solid electrolyte that has conductivity of ions of a metal in group 1 or group 2 of the periodic table,”), binder particles (Paragraph 00120, “It is also preferable that the solid electrolyte composition of the present invention contains a binder.”) having an average particle diameter of preferably 100 nm (Paragraph 0118, “The shape of the inorganic solid electrolyte is not particularly limited but is preferably a particle. The volume average particle size of the inorganic solid electrolyte is not particularly limited, but it is preferably 0.01 μm or more, more preferably 0.1 μm”), as well as a dispersion medium (Paragraph 0151, “The solid electrolyte composition of the present invention may contain a dispersion medium.”). Additionally, Makino discloses structure wherein the binder particles include a block polymer (Paragraph 0167, “The solid electrolyte layer contains a block polymer”; Paragraph 0103, “The block units at both ends of the block polymer used in the present invention act as both binders”).
Additionally, Makino discloses structure wherein the block polymer contains a block polymerized chain which has at least one terminal block chain (Paragraph 0011, “wherein at least one of the terminal ends of the main chain of the block polymer”), where their chain comprises multiple linked block polymers, each having a constitutional component represented by formula 1 represented by Makino’s formula U1 (Paragraph 0032, “The block polymer used in the present invention preferably contains at least one block component composed of a repeating unit represented by any one of the following formulas (U1) to (U3).”).
PNG
media_image1.png
107
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the compound of Makino’s formula U1 satisfies the composition of the instant claim’s formula 1, where Makino’s R1 is a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group (Paragraph 0033, “In the formula (U1), R1 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group”) having 1 atom (Paragraph 0034, “…and particularly preferably 1. Specific examples thereof include methyl”), which is the instant claim’s Ra, and (L1)m2 represents a divalent linking group which is not present in formula U1 (Paragraph 0033, “L1 represents a divalent linking group, and m 1 represents 0 or 1.”), and R2 represents a “specific functional group (Paragraph 0033, “and R2 represents a hydrogen atom, a specific functional group, or a specific substituent described later.”) which is a linear alkyl group having 12 carbon atoms, evidenced as being permitted through their example A21, which depict an instance of the block polymer group where R2 is a C12 linear alkane (thereby resulting in the polymer unit being dodecylmethacrylate).
PNG
media_image2.png
139
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Makino discloses structure wherein the block chain is adjacent to the terminal block chain (Paragraph 0032, “The block polymer used in the present invention preferably contains at least one block component comprising a repeating unit represented by any one of the following formulas (U1) to (U3).”)
Here, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim, which requires structure wherein the terminal chain has a CLogP value of 2 or more, Makino does disclose the use of dodecyl polymethacrylate, shown as an option in their formula A-21, shown above, identified in the instant specification as having a CLogP value of 6.9, shown in the instant specification’s formula B1, presented below.
PNG
media_image3.png
178
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires the presence of a block polymer unit which has a CLogP value of 1 or less, Makino discloses, for example, the use of a methacrylic acid monomer in their example A-16, presented below:
PNG
media_image4.png
125
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Here, methacrylic acid is a monomer having a CLogP value of 0.647 (Supported by Chemeo in light of Wildman, cited above), further disclosing that these components may be used as constitutional components in a block copolymer (where each constitutional component is a terminal block polymer as a result of the block copolymer comprising two blocks) (Paragraph 0009, “As a result of intensive investigations in view of the above problems, the present inventors have found that a block polymer (block copolymer) having a functional group and an affinity for at least one of an electrode active material and a specific inorganic solid electrolyte and an inorganic solid electrolyte , Was found to be excellent in dispersion stability of solid particles.”)
However, though Makino discloses the use of dodecyl methacrylate monomers and block polymer units with a CLogP of 1 or less (methacrylic acid), it fails to individually motivate their use in a single block copolymer. However, where Makino presents a finite number of examples, the combinations of the monomer units within their examples represent a finite set of combinations. Accordingly, each combination of monomer blocks presented in Makino’s examples would be obvious to combine each other block over the course of routine experimentation. Accordingly, where Makino’s example A-16 comprises 80 units of methacrylic acid, and their embodiment A21 comprises 20 units of dodecyl methacrylate, the combination of said blocks represents an obvious variant with would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to try, thereby representing and making obvious structure which has a compound which satisfies formula 1 and has a CLogP value of 6.7 as a terminal unit, and a block chain who’s constituent component has a CLogP value of 0.647, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claims.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which the requires that the block chain having a CLogP value of 1 or less contains a constitutional component derived from a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound, as discussed above Makino discloses structure where the CLogP<1 component is methacrylic acid. Here, the language of “derived from” is interpreted as requiring any component which is or can be derived from a methacrylic acid ester component, based on page 25 of the specification, which reads “a constitutional component represented by Formula (1) and a constitutional component of a short-chain alkyl group, the constitutional component being derived from a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound.”). There is no additional structure given to “derived from” based on the specification.
Accordingly, based on the teaching of Alarifi, who teaches that methacrylic acid copolymers can be produced by the esterification of polymethacrylic acid (Column 4 lines 47-51, “The present invention relates to a method for producing acrylic or methacrylic acid/acrylate or methacrylate ester copolymers or terpolymers by esterification of polyacrylic acid or polymethacrylic acid with several alcohols (aliphatics and aromatics) using the pervaporation technique.”), methacrylic acid copolymer units are therefore a constitutional component which can be derived from a methacrylic acid ester compound.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses structure wherein the terminal block chain contains at least two constitutional components, as discussed above where the terminal block chain comprises a plurality of chained monomers, each of which comprise multiple functional groups (Paragraph 0015, “The main chain skeleton of the block polymer used in the present invention is not particularly limited, but is preferably a copolymer skeleton composed of blocks obtained by polymerizing ethylenically unsaturated monomers.”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Makino discloses the use of a block copolymer (“As a result of intensive investigations in view of the above problems, the present inventors have found that a block polymer (block copolymer) having a functional group and an affinity for at least one of an electrode active material and a specific inorganic solid electrolyte and an inorganic solid electrolyte , Was found to be excellent in dispersion stability of solid particles.”), thereby resulting in the block polymber being represented by formula 1a, comprising hydroxyethyl methacrylate as B, the block chain having a CLofP value of 1 or less, as discussed above, and dodecylmethacrylate as the terminal block chain A.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, the block polymer as discussed above comprises linked dodecylmethacrylate (as shown in Makino’s figure A-21) and hydroxyethyl methacrylate, thereby reading on Formula 3, where Rc is an alkyl group with 1 carbon atom, x is a divalent linking group, and C is a segment of polymerized block chain, here the 12-carbon alkyl chain. Additionally, D is methacrylic acid, which has a CLogP value of 0.647 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 4. Additionally where the terminal group is dodecylmethacrylate, as discussed above, the linking group X is a group obtained by combining a carbonyl group and an oxygen atom, and has 3 constituent atoms.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, as discussed above, where Makino makes obvious a terminal block unit comprising 20 repeating units, and a block chain with a CLogP of less than 1 comprising 80 repeating units, said 20% and 80% respective contents read upon the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure where a content of the terminal block chain is 35% by mole or less, and a content of the block chain having a CLogP value of 1 or less is 65% by mole or more.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses that it is further preferable to have a binder with an average particle diameter of 100 nanometers (Paragraph 0118, “The shape of the inorganic solid electrolyte is not particularly limited but is preferably a particle. The volume average particle size of the inorganic solid electrolyte is not particularly limited, but it is preferably 0.01 μm or more, more preferably 0.1 μm”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, Makino’s functional group which is the Rb group has 12 carbon atoms.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Makino’s disclosed terminal block chain has a CLogP value of 6.9, which is greater than 3.5.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, the CLogP value of methacrylic acid is 0.647, which is less than 0.7 thereby satisfying the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Makino’s block chain having a CLogP value of 1 or less has a hydroxy functional group, the compound being methacrylic acid which has a carboxy group (as well as a hydroxy group within said carboxy group).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses structure which further comprises an active material, disclosing the use of a lithium salt in the solid electrolyte (“The solid electrolyte composition of the present invention preferably contains a lithium salt.”).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses structure which further comprises a conductive auxiliary agent (Paragraph 00134, “It is also preferable that the solid electrolyte composition of the present invention contains a conductive additive.”).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses structure where the inorganic solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0117, “It is preferable that the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte.”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses a sheet for an all-solid state secondary battery comprising a layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0167, “The preparation of an all solid secondary battery may be carried out according to a conventional method. Specifically, there is a method in which the solid electrolyte composition of the present invention is applied onto a metal foil serving as a current collector to form an electrode sheet for an all solid secondary battery having a coating film formed thereon.”)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses an all-solid state second battery comprising a positive electrode active material layer, a solid electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode active material layer (Paragraph 0168, “It is possible to obtain the structure of the all solid secondary battery in which the solid electrolyte layer is sandwiched between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer by stacking the negative electrode current collector (metal foil) on the negative electrode active material layer it can.”), wherein at least one layer of the positive electrode active material layer, the negative electrode active material layer, or the solid electrolyte layer is a layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses the manufacturing method of a sheet for an all-solid state secondary battery comprising a layer constituted of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0167, “The preparation of an all solid secondary battery may be carried out according to a conventional method. Specifically, there is a method in which the solid electrolyte composition of the present invention is applied onto a metal foil serving as a current collector to form an electrode sheet for an all solid secondary battery having a coating film formed thereon.”).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 18. Additionally, Makino discloses a manufacturing method for the production of the all-solid state secondary battery through the manufacturing method of claim 18 (Paragraph 0167, “The preparation of an all solid secondary battery may be carried out according to a conventional method. Specifically, there is a method in which the solid electrolyte composition of the present invention is applied onto a metal foil serving as a current collector to form an electrode sheet for an all solid secondary battery having a coating film formed thereon.”)
Regarding Claim 20, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Makino discloses a variety of terminal block chain and non-terminal block chain ratios, shown in their figures A1-A23. Here, these ratios include a composition having a 70-30 percentage composition split between two block units, shown in their figure A-2. Here, based on the finite number of options presented in the compositions of Makino, it would be obvious to try such a ratio with the components discussed above, those being methacrylic acid as the CLogP<1 block chain, and duodecylmethacrylate as the terminal block chain, resulting in an embodiment which has 30% terminal block chain, and 70% CLogP<1 block chain, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Makino makes obvious the invention of Claim 4. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that a content of a constitutional component having the block polymerized chain C is 0.4 to 10 percent with respect to all the constitutional components of the block polymer, as discussed above, C is the 12-carbon alkyl chain of duodecylmethacrylate. Here, it is noted that the instant claim requires “a content” without indication as to what parameter is measured by “a content”, be it molar, volume, mass, or atomic. Accordingly, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the limitation would be satisfied by any content which is 0.4 to 10 percent with respect to all the constitutional components of the block polymer. Additionally, the claim requires that it be “a content of a constitutional component including C”, which indicates that any group could be identified as being the constitutional component, as long as it includes C, without restriction based on groups presented in the parent claims.
Accordingly, as discussed above, where Makino makes obvious a block polymer which comprises 80 units of methacrylic acid, and 20 units of dodecyl methacrylate, a subset of 0.4 to 10 units of the outermost units of the 20 units of duodecyl methacrylate could be identified as a unique constitutional component having the block polymerized chain C, and where 0.4-10 is less than 20, this would therefore result in a molar content of a constitutional component having the block polymerized chain C being 0.4-10 percent with respect to all the constitutional components of the block 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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725