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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are amended. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 02/26/2026 has/have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented below.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumine et al. (CN-107408673-A; cited in 03/15/2024 IDS; machine translation with 06/23/2025 Office action) in view of Maeda et al. (US-20180062162-A1) and Brandrup et al. (Polymer Handbook pp. VI/198 - VI/205, Tables of Glass Transition Temperatures of Polymers sec. 1.1. POLY(ACRYLICS) AND POLY(METHACRYLICS); copy with 02/26/2026 Office action):
Examiner notes that the statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to limit the claim (see MPEP 2112.02 II). Here, the statement “for an all-solid-state battery” does not impart additional structure to the claimed binder particles and therefore any binder particles capable of use in an all-solid-state battery are interpreted as reading on binder particles “for an all-solid-state battery”.
PNG
media_image1.png
703
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Machine translation of Fukumine Table 1 (pp. 19)
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5 Fukumine discloses binder particles for (i.e., capable of use within; see discussion of preamble above) an all-solid-state battery comprising a polymer (“copolymer that functions as a binder”, [0043]).
Fukumine discloses the following Example 6 having the following composition:
82 mass% acrylonitrile (AN) as a majority component, i.e., a polymer base
3% methacrylic acid (MAA)
15% 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA)
A D50 of 300 µm
A glass-transition temperature of 85 °C (see Fukumine Table 1, [0199]);
While Fukumine does not explicitly state a numerical cohesion of the binder (see inst. spec. [0111]), Applicant’s experimental data indicates a close correlation between glass-transition temperature (GT) and cohesion in related acrylonitrile-containing binders (see Chart 1 below, comparing Applicant’s Examples 1-2, 4-8, 10 using acrylonitrile), suggesting that Fukumine Ex. 6’s inherent cohesion is near the upper limit of the 1%-9.5% cohesion range of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
591
1039
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chart 1
Fukumine additionally discloses adjusting the GT above 60 °C to avoid excessive particle adhesion and non-uniform dispersion during mixing, and less than 170 °C to provide sufficient flexibility and peel strength (i.e., adhesion) (Fukumine [0079]). It would therefore be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the binder polymer GT between at least 60-170 °C to balance the dispersity and adhesivity under Fukumine’s disclosure (see MPEP 2144.05 II). Moreover, through utilizing a portion of the GT range between about ~85‑105 °C during optimization, one would inherently produce Fukumine’s binder particles with a cohesion range of 1-9.5% as claimed in claim 1, and would be expected to succeed from being done within Fukumine’s suitable range of 60-170 °C.
This ~85‑105 °C range of modified Fukumine also falls within and renders obvious a portion of claim 2’s glass transition temperature range of 50-120 °C, and reads on the selection of a nitrile group-containing monomer unit (acrylonitrile) from the group of monomer units of claim 5.
While not appearing limited to this value, Fukumine Ex. 6 comprises a volume-average particle diameter D50 of 300 µm (Fukumine Table 1), outside the claimed D50 range of 10-100 µm.
However, Fukumine’s D50 is at least 1 µm to provide a suitable amount of coating with the binder to ensure high potential durability and peel strength, and less than 2000 µm to prevent an excessively thick coating from increasing resistance ([0086]). Another experimental example (Ex. 3, pp. 19 Fukumine Table 1) has a D50 of 10 µm. It would thus be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the D50 range of 10-100 µm claimed in claim 1 encompassed within the optimization range of 1-2000 µm through seeking to balance considerations of potential durability and peel strength with resistance according to Fukumine’s disclosure, with a reasonable expectation of success since Fukumine Ex.3 demonstrates an operability of particles with a D50 in this range (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Fukumine’s polymer of Ex. 6 includes 3 mass% methacrylic acid (MAA) ([0217], Fukumine pp. 19 Table 1), i.e., an ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer unit in a proportional content between 1.5-10 mass% in the polymer as claimed in claim 1, thus disclosing or specifically suggesting a binder polymer with this component such that it would be obvious to do so with a reasonable expectation of success from being demonstrated as operable (MPEP 2144.07).
The Ex. 6 polymer includes 15 mass% 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA) ([0199], Fukumine pp. 19 Table 1), i.e., an acrylic acid alkyl ester (acrylate) monomer unit having an alkyl chain carbon number of 4 or more (≥4-chain) (see claim 1), but does not further comprise a methacrylic acid alkyl ester (methacrylate) monomer unit having an alkyl chain carbon number of 4 or less (≤4-chain) (see claim 1).
However, the 2-EHA may be used alone or in combination of two or more equivalent other (meth)acrylate monomers ([0071, 0069]) selected from a finite list of named, suitable monomers including ≤4-chain methacrylate monomer units inter alia (“alkyl methacrylates such as methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, n-propyl methacrylate […]”, [0070]). It is also known in the art that the type and proportion of (meth)acrylate monomer unit affects the GT of the binder polymer, as shown by example in Fukumine pp. 19 Table 1, Ex. 1, 5, 6, Comp Ex. 4 and by Brandrup due to the different GT of the (meth)acrylate monomers (Brandrup Table 1. sec. 1.1 pp. VI/198 - VI/205).
Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to produce binder particles including a ≥4-chain acrylate monomer unit and a ≤4-chain methacrylate monomer unit as claimed in claim 1 through substituting or combining the 2-EHA of Fukumine’s Ex. 6 polymer (i.e., the ≥4-chain acrylate monomer unit) with at least one of the named ≤4-chain methacrylate monomers recognized by Fukumine as functional equivalents as the other monomer unit in order to adjust the GT and adhesion properties of the polymer according to Fukumine’s disclosure evidenced by Brandrup, with a reasonable expectation of success since both 2-EHA and the ≤4-chain methacrylate monomers share the trait of being (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer units (MPEP 2144.06 I, II).
Additionally, since Fukumine Ex. 6 comprises 15 mass% 2-EHA as the (meth)acrylate monomer (Fukumine Table 1, [0072]), substitution results in proportional contents of 2-EHA (i.e., the ≥4-chain acrylate monomer unit) and ≤4-chain methacrylate monomer unit totaling 15 mass%, overlapping with the 5-40 mass% ranges of ≥4-chain acrylate and ≤4-chain methacrylate monomer respectively (see claim 1) in overlapping portions between 5-10 mass% for each component such that a skilled artisan would have routinely selected within the overlap through adjusting the GT of the binder polymer through the selection of the meth(acrylate) monomers as discussed above (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Fukumine envisions a necessity of controlling the binder polymer composition to balance providing sufficient binder adhesion without causing excessive binder coverage and increasing the resistance, such as through adjusting a content of a hydrophilic monomer unit ([0067]). While Fukumine fails to suggest the inclusion of a cross-linkable monomer unit in the polymer, where claim 1 recites a cross-linkable monomer content of 0.1-0.5 mass% in the polymer, methods of using a cross-linkable monomer in the binder polymer to achieve the above effects are known in the art; Maeda (US20180062162A1), in discussion of a binder of a similar polymer composition including a (meth)acrylate monomer and another monomer such as acrylonitrile (Maeda [0036-0042]), teaches the use of at least 0.05 mass% of a cross-linkable monomer unit (“crosslinking agent”) in the polymer to reduce excessive coverage by the binder, and preferably below than 1 mass% to avoid impacting the binder adhesion ([0048-0049]).
Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to use the cross-linkable polymer proportional content range of 0.1-0.5 mass% claimed in claim 1 within modified Fukumine’s binder particles through seeking to balance providing appropriate binder coverage and adhesivity using a cross-linkable monomer unit in a range of 0.05-1 mass% closely encompassing the claimed range as taught by Maeda. Such a modification would be reasonably expected to succeed since modified Fukumine’s binder polymer composition requires only minor adjustment to include the 0.1-0.5 mass% monomer, and because Fukumine recognizes adjusting the binder coverage and adhesion as done by effects of the cross-linkable monomer (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Modified Fukumine’s binder particles are for use in (i.e., capable of use within) in an electrode of the all-solid-state battery (see discussion of preamble above) by a dry-blending (“dry mixing”) method (Fukumine [0017-0018]).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumine (CN-107408673-A) in view of Maeda (US-20180062162-A1) and Brandrup ("Polymer Handbook") as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kubo et al. (WO-2020188914-A1, US-20210391594-A1 cited as English equivalent; cited in 02/26/2026 Office action):
Regarding claims 7-11, modified Fukumine discloses the binder particles for (i.e., capable of use within) an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1. Fukumine forms a composition usable in an all-solid-state battery comprising the binder particles, an electrode active material (“positive electrode active material”) and a conductive additive (“conductive material”) present as a dry particulate mixture used to form a functional layer (Fukumine [0040]) reading on the limitations of claims 8-10 and reading on portions of claims 7 and 11, but fails to disclose solid electrolyte particles in the composition of claim 7, and an all-solid-state battery comprising the functional layer for an all-solid-state battery as claimed in claim 11.
Kubo, an all-solid-state battery (Kubo, [0014]) wherein solid electrolyte particles (“solid electrolyte material”) and an electrode active material (“LiCoO2”) are mixed in a mortar without a solvent, i.e., are dry-blended, to form a composition (“mixture”) for an all-solid-state battery ([0112]), teaches that a binder including the general composition of modified Fukumine’s (i.e., a copolymer of polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylic acid, poly(meth)acrylates, Kubo [0089]) may be suitably utilized in functional layers of the all-solid-state battery ([0088]). It would thus be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select modified Fukumine’s binder particles according to claim 1 for use as a binder to improve the adhesion between the particles in a functional layer in an all-solid-state battery such as Kubo’s functional layer, reading on claim 11 (MPEP 2144.07). It would also be obvious to add modified Fukumine’s binder during the dry-blending process of forming Kubo’s functional layer (Kubo [0112]), thus producing a composition for an all-solid-state battery further comprising solid electrolyte particles present in the dry particulate mixture and fully reading on claim 7, since Fukumine’s binder is similarly dry-blended in producing the functional layer composition (Fukumine [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the previously cited combination of Fukumine in view of Kim et al. (US20130202963A1) evidenced by Brandrup, particularly, that Kim directs a skilled artisan towards higher crosslinker levels (Remarks p. 6-7), have been considered but are moot because the current grounds of rejection do not rely upon Kim’s teaching regarding the crosslinker content.
Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed 07/24/2026.
Applicant indicates that the present amendments (narrowing the claimed cross-linkable monomer content range in claim 1, and specifying a composition or intended composition in which the binder particles and solid electrolyte particles are present as a dry particulate mixture in claims 1 and 7) address Examiner’s concerns regarding commensurateness in scope of the claims with the embodiments demonstrated in the specification (Remarks p. 7-8).
Examiner agrees that the present amendments bring the claims closer in scope with Applicant’s evidence of unexpected results. Moreover, while the use of cross-linking monomers in ranges appreciably similar to the claimed 0.1-0.5 mass% range are known and utilized in the art for similar effects on the adhesion and agglomeration cited by applicant (¶[0044], inst. spec.; see discussion in view of Maeda in claim 1), the cited prior art does not directly attribute Applicant’s specific cross-linking monomer content range to unexpected improvements to the output and cycle characteristics. However, the scope of claim 1 still remains broader than the specific conditions which produce Applicant’s cited unexpected results, such that the cited evidence of unexpected results does not fully overcome the conclusion of obviousness in view of the cited prior art (MPEP 716.02(d)).
As non-limiting examples, many of the experimental binder polymers comprise a significant portion (e.g., 44.75% in Ex. 8 to 80.75% in Ex. 9, Table 1 p. 46) of the monomers being a nitrile group-containing or aromatic vinyl monomer unit. Even though claim 5 positively requires the inclusion of a nitrile or aromatic vinyl monomer, no claims establish a minimum required mass content of this monomer despite the monomer being the single largest component of the binder polymer by mass in every experimental embodiment. It is not apparent that Applicant’s identified beneficial effects would necessarily be obtained, for example, in a binder containing a negligible content of a nitrile monomer which may still otherwise meet the limitations of claims 1 and 5.
Moreover, specific nitrile and aromatic vinyl polymers also have different properties and behavior; for example, Ex. 9 using monoacrylonitrile has a very large high cohesion value relative to comparable embodiments using acrylonitrile, despite both MAN and AN being nitrile group-containing monomers. It is not clearly shown that the beneficial results can be obtained over the entire range of monomers encompassed by the nitrile group-containing monomer unit and/or aromatic vinyl monomer unit of claim 5.
Additionally, the identity of the cross-linkable monomer unit in the examples much more specific than claim 1’s recitation. The examples exclusively use allyl methacrylate as the cross-linkable monomer, but different cross-linkable monomers (e.g., monomers with 3 or more unsaturated bonds for bonding, where AMA comprises only 2) would not necessarily have the same cross-linking effects at the same specific compositional range cited by Applicant to produce the unexpected benefits.
Examiner also notes, as discussed in the interview, that the letter grades used to evaluate the beneficial effects to output characteristics and cycle characteristics (Table 1, p. 46) make it difficult to determine the amount to which these parameters are improved by the example compositions; for example, a capacity maintenance rate of 99% and 90% are both classified as an “A” grade (inst. spec. [0116]) despite being significantly different results.
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights