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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 & 4-11 are pending in the application. Claims 7-11 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2 & 4-11 were allowed in the 12/22/2025 Notice of Allowance, now withdrawn. Claims 1-2 & 4-6 are presently examined.
Examiner’s Amendment
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. This examiner’s amendment was presented in the 12/22/2025 Notice of Allowance. Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an email from Tatsuya Sawada on 11/17/2025. Claim 1 is amended as follows:
1. A binder composition for a secondary battery comprising:
a polymer;
an organic solvent; and
a compound formed of an organic material or an inorganic material, wherein
the compound has a solubility of 10 mass% or less in water at a temperature of 25°C and includes an element belonging to either or both of group 13 and group 14 of the periodic table, excluding carbon and germanium,
content of the element in the binder composition for a secondary battery is not less than 5 mass ppm and not more than 5,000 mass ppm relative to the polymer;
the compound includes at least one compound selected from a group consisting of zeolites, silica gel, polydimethylsiloxane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2 & 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 states:
content of the element in the binder composition for a secondary battery is not less than 5 mass ppm and not more than 5,000 mass ppm relative to the polymer
It is not clear what “content… relative to the polymer” means. Examiner couldn’t find clear teaching in the specification for this claim limitation. Following are three possible interpretations:
INTERPETATION A:
ratio of the element to the polymer is not less than 5 mass ppm and not more than 5,000 mass ppm
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
A
:
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
s
s
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
m
a
s
s
*
1
M
INTERPETATION B:
fraction of the element relative to the element plus the polymer is not less than 5 mass ppm and not more than 5,000 mass ppm
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
B
:
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
s
s
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
s
s
+
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
m
a
s
s
*
1
M
INTERPETATION C:
content of the element in the binder composition for a secondary battery is not less than 5 mass ppm and not more than 5,000 mass ppm
E
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
C
:
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
s
s
b
i
n
d
e
r
m
a
s
s
*
1
M
Argument could be made for each of these interpretations. For present examination, until this 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is resolved, Examiner will interpret this claim limitation according to INTERPETATION B.
Any amendment to resolve this 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection must be supported by the specification in order to avoid a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
Claims 2 & 4-6 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180287134A1 (Ledwoch).
Ledwoch teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A binder composition (paragraph 79: slurry for cathode includes a binder) for a secondary battery (intended use does not limit the claim) comprising:
a polymer (paragraph 79: polyacrylic acid);
an organic solvent (paragraph 79: N-Methylpyrrolidone); and
a compound formed of an organic material or an inorganic material (paragraph 79: zeolite), wherein
the compound has a solubility of 10 mass% or less in water (zeolite / aluminosilicate is insoluble in water1) at a temperature of 25°C and includes an element belonging to either or both of group 13 and group 14 (Si) of the periodic table (zeolite is Al2O3 & SiO2, or Al2O5Si1), excluding carbon and germanium…
the compound includes at least one compound selected from a group consisting of zeolites (paragraph 79: zeolite), silica gel, polydimethylsiloxane
Claim 1 also states:
content of the element in the binder composition for a secondary battery is not less than 5 mass ppm and not more than 5,000 mass ppm relative to the polymer
Ledwoch’s electrode can include 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% zeolite (paragraph 58) and 1 wt% to 30 wt% polymer (paragraph 59). Following are calculations showing the ppm of the element silicon:
Zeolite is Al2O5Si. Element Si mass fraction in the compound:
28
2
*
27
+
5
*
16
+
28
=
0.1728
.
Element Si mass ppm relative to the polymer:
0.1
*
0.1728
30
+
0.1
*
0.1728
*
1,000,000
=
576
p
p
m
and
10
*
0.1728
1
+
10
*
0.1728
*
1,000,000
=
633,431
p
p
m
Therefore, Ledwoch’s 576 to 633,431 range overlaps the claimed 5 to 5000 range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“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)”
Given that Ledwoch’s range substantially overlaps the claimed range, the range in claim 1 is an obvious variant of Ledwoch’s range.
With regard to claim 2, modified Ledwoch teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ledwoch also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
the polymer includes one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of a carbonyl group, an ether group, a carboxy group (paragraph 79: polyacrylic acid), and a hydroxy group
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180287134A1 (Ledwoch), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20180233728A1 (Ohkubo). Ledwoch teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ledwoch, however, fails to teach the following claim 4 limitation, which is taught by Ohkubo:
the polymer includes a vinyl cyanide monomer unit in a proportion of not less than 2 mass% and not more than 35 mass% (paragraph 11: ≥ 20 mass% (meth)acrylonitrile monomer unit)
Ohkubo is directed to a binder, for a secondary battery, for high transition metal capturing ability (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ledwoch’s polymer to include ≥ 20 mass% (meth)acrylonitrile, as taught by Ohkubo, for high transition metal capturing ability.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180287134A1 (Ledwoch), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20210167389A1 (Maeda).
Ledwoch teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ledwoch, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claims 5-6, which are taught by Maeda:
Claim 5
the polymer includes an aromatic monomer unit in a proportion of not less than 5 mass% and not more than 40 mass% (Table 1, example 4: 30 mass% styrene)
Claim 6
the polymer includes either or both of a conjugated diene monomer unit and an alkylene structural unit in a proportion of not less than 20 mass% and not more than 60 mass% (Table 1, example 4: 59 mass% 1,3-butadiene)
Maeda is directed to a battery binder composition for good battery characteristics (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ledwoch’s polymer to include 30 mass% styrene (claim 5) or 59 mass% 1,3-butadiene (claim 6), as taught by Maeda, for good battery characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
1 https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB6330194.htm
Prosecution Insights