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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11 are pending review in this Office action. 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arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 06/23/2025 has/have been withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumine et al. (CN107408673A, see IDS filed 03/15/2024, see translation in Office action filed 06/23/2025) in view of Kim et al. US20130202963A1 and as evidenced by 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); see copy provided with this 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) an all-solid-state battery comprising a polymer (“copolymer that functions as a binder”, [0043]). While Fukumine envisions a need to provide a sufficient “cohesive force” of the copolymer alongside suitable dispersibility and peel strength (i.e., adhesion) ([0049]), these considerations being nearly identical in scope to the effects of the cohesion percentage as recited in the instant specification ([0023]: “less than 1% [cohesion], the binder particles no longer closely adhere well”; “30% or more [cohesion], the binder particles excessively agglomerate […] and fluidity (dispersibility) during dry blending decreases”), Fukumine fails to explicitly state a numerical cohesion value of the binder as defined in [0111] in the instant specification.
However, in Applicant’s experimental results of binder particles with acrylonitrile (AN) as the polymer base i.e., as the majority component (Instant specification, pp. 46, Table 1), binder cohesion appears to closely correlate with the glass-transition temperature even between different monomer compositions or particle sizes (see GT/Cohesion Comparison below, comparing Applicant’s Examples 1-2, 4-8, 10, Comparative Examples 1-4, these being the binders using acrylonitrile as the polymer base)
PNG
media_image2.png
629
1105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fukumine’s binders similarly use acrylonitrile monomers as the majority component, i.e., as a polymer base ([0044-0049], pp. 19 Table 1) (see claim 5), and consequently would be expected to follow this inherent relation of glass-transition temperature and cohesion percentage.
Supporting this, Fukumine recognizes similar effects of optimizing the glass-transition temperature within a range of at least 60 °C to avoid non-uniform dispersion caused by excess adhesion between binder particles and less than 170 °C to provide sufficient flexibility and peel strength (i.e., adhesion) ([0079]), these effects being substantially similar to the effects of cohesion (Instant specification, [0023])
As such, in seeking to balance the dispersibility and adhesivity of Fukumine’s binder particles, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the binder polymer glass-transition temperature within a range of 60-170 °C according to Fukumine’s disclosure (MPEP 2144.05 II). In doing so, a skilled artisan performing this optimization within an encompassed range of ~85-105 °C appearing to correspond to the claimed cohesion range (1%-9.5%, claim 1) (see figure GT/Cohesion Comparison) would inherently produce Fukumine’s binder particles having a cohesion value encompassing the claimed range (claim 1) in addition to rendering obvious a portion of the claimed range of glass-transition temperature (claim 2) between 85-105 °C (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Fukumine discloses the following Example 6:
82 mass% acrylonitrile (AN) as a majority component, i.e., a polymer base
3% methacrylic acid (MAA)
15% 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA)
A glass-transition temperature of 85 °C (see Fukumine Table 1, [0199]),
this example having a glass-transition temperature of 85 °C already being at or near an endpoint of this range of temperature and inherent cohesion value.
Fukumine further discloses an experimental example of the binder (see Example 3, pp. 19 Fukumine Table 1) having a volume-average particle diameter D50 of 10 µm, which falls within the claimed range (10-100 µm, claim 1). While this example has a different composition from Fukumine Example 6 (pp. 19 Fukumine Table 1), it would nonetheless be obvious to form a binder particle having the composition and cohesion/GT temperature properties of modified Fukumine Example 6 and the particle diameter D50 of Fukumine Example 3 within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success as Fukumine provides experimental evidence of the operability of both binders (MPEP 2144.06 I).
Assuming arguendo that applicant convincingly proves that such a combination would not necessarily be made with a reasonable expectation of success, Fukumine further teaches optimizing a volume-average particle diameter D50 of the particles within a range of at least 1 µm to enable a sufficiently thick binder coating around the positive electrode active material and below 2000 µm to prevent excessive thickness in the positive electrode active material from reducing an internal resistance of the battery ([0086]); consequently, in seeking to balance these considerations, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize modified Fukumine’s binder particle diameter D50 within this range encompassing the claimed range (10-100 µm, claim 1) and select within the encompassed range through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Fukumine’s polymer of Example 6 includes 3 mass% methacrylic acid (MAA) ([0217], Fukumine pp. 19 Table 1), this being an ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer unit in a proportional content between 1.5-10 mass% in the polymer (claim 1).
Fukumine’s polymer of Example 6 includes 15 mass% 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA) ([0199], Fukumine pp. 19 Table 1), this being an acrylic acid alkyl ester (i.e., acrylate) monomer unit having an alkyl chain carbon number of 4 or more (claim 1). Fukumine envisions the inclusion of other (meth)acrylate monomer units in the binder polymer ([0069-0070]), these monomers being suitably provided alone or in combinations of two or more ([0071]) and as equivalents to 2-EHA ([0070]). While Fukumine fails to disclose a working embodiment of the polymer with a methacrylic acid alkyl ester (i.e., methacrylate) monomer unit having an alkyl chain carbon number of 4 or less, Fukumine discloses a finite list of suitable (meth)acrylate monomers, with multiple species of the list (“alkyl methacrylates such as methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, n-propyl methacrylate […]”, [0070]) being methacrylate monomer units having an alkyl chain carbon number of 4 or less.
Consequently, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the use of 2-EHA in modified Fukumine’s binder polymer with a methacrylate monomer unit having an alkyl chain carbon number of 4 or less with a reasonable expectation of success as Fukumine recognizes 2-EHA and the methacrylate monomer as equivalents ([0070]) suitably provided as a combination of 2 or more ([0071]) (MPEP 2144.06 I).
Fukumine further discloses a preferability to maintain the total mass of (meth)acrylate monomer units within a range of 20% or less. While Fukumine fails to explicitly indicate a mass percentage of methacrylate monomer unit, Fukumine’s experimental examples indicate effects on glass-transition temperature and adhesion corresponding in part with (meth)acrylate monomer unit content in the polymer (see Fukumine pp. 19 Table 1, Examples 1, 5, 6, Comparative Example 4); it is also known that different (meth)acrylate monomers have different glass-transition temperatures as polymers and as co-monomers (2-EHA being -50 °C, methyl methacrylate being 105 °C, ethyl methacrylate being 65°C, etc.; see Brandrup Table 1. sec. 1.1 pp. VI/198 - VI/205). Consequently, in seeking to optimize the glass-transition temperature and adhesion of modified Fukumine’s binder particles, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the type and/or mass% of the acrylate monomer having a chain carbon number of 4 or more and the methacrylate monomer having a chain carbon number of 4 or less within the range of 0-20 total mass% meth(acrylate) monomer disclosed by Fukumine, overlapping with portions of each of the claimed ranges (5-40 mass% acrylate monomer and 5-40 mass% methacrylate monomer, claim 1) between 5-15 mass% such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization under Fukumine’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
While Fukumine discloses that the polymer binder must be able to prevent electrode components from being separated from the electrode layer ([0043]) while maintaining sufficient flexibility and adhesion ([0079]), Fukumine fails to disclose the use of a cross-linkable monomer unit for this purpose.
Kim is directed to analogous polymer binder particles (Kim [0015]) compatible with an inorganic solid electrolyte ([0054-0055]) and similarly based on nitrile or ethylenically unsaturated carbonic acid ester monomers (e.g., acrylate) ([0021-0022]). Kim further teaches the addition of a cross-linking agent within a range of at least 0.5 mass% to control the volume variation of the electrode during charge/discharge and prevent separation between the between the electrode components ([0029], [0007]) and less than 5 mass% to prevent a reduction in adhesion force ([0029]), with the cross-linking agents being selected from multifunctional meth(acrylate) monomers ([0030]).
As such, in seeking to prevent electrode component separation during charge/discharge and to balance the binder adhesion, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a cross-linkable monomer unit in the polymer and optimize a proportional content of this monomer between 0.5-5 mass% as taught by Kim, overlapping with a portion of the claimed range (0.1-2 mass%, claim 1) between 0.5-2 mass% such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such a modification and optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Fukumine seeks to improve or balance effects to binder adhesion and resistance to electrode material separation as provided by the crosslinker (Fukumine [0043], [0079]) and recognizes meth(acrylate) monomer units as compatible ([0069]), where Kim’s cross-linkable monomer units are provided as multifunctional meth(acrylate) monomers (Kim [0030]).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumine (CN107408673A) in view of Kim (US20130202963A1) as evidenced by Brandrup as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kubo et al. WO2020188914A1 (US20210391594A1 cited as an English equivalent)
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, but fails to further disclose a composition for an all-solid-state battery comprising the binder particles according to claim 1 and solid electrolyte particles.
Kubo, directed to an all-solid-state battery (Kubo, [0014]), teaches a functional layer (201, “positive electrode”) for an all-solid-state battery comprising a binder for an all-solid-state battery ([0088]), solid electrolyte particles (100), an electrode active material (204, “positive electrode active material particle”) ([0035], FIG. 1) and a conductive additive (“conductive auxiliary agent”) ([0090]), wherein the binder serves to improve adhesion between particles. While Kubo does not further specify the binder particles as being the particles of claim 1, Kubo teaches a suitability of using polymer binders comprising materials or a mixture of materials including polyacrylonitrile, polymethacrylic acid, hexyl polyacrylate, methyl polymethacrylate ([0089]), these materials being included in or analogous to the composition of polymers in modified Fukumine’s binder particles (AN, MAA, 2-EHA, a methacrylate monomer having a carbon chain of ≥4, a meth(acrylate) cross-linkable monomer unit) such that it would 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 for an all-solid-state battery such as Kubo’s functional layer, the functional layer being comprised by an all-solid-state battery (Kubo [0014], [0088-0089]) (claims 10, 11) (MPEP 2144.07).
The group of materials (i.e., a composition) forming this functional layer would also be recognized as a composition for an all-solid-state battery comprising the binder particles for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 and solid electrolyte particles (Kubo [0035], [0088], FIG.1) (claim 7), further comprising an electrode active material ([0035]) (claim 8) and a conductive additive ([0090]) (claim 9).
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 combination of Fukumine in view of Konishi (US20140307364A1) and Kobashi (JP2015003998A) as applied in the previous Office action filed 06/23/2025 (remarks pp. 4-6) have been considered but are moot since Applicant's amendment necessitated a different interpretation of Fukumine as laid out in the rejections of record, or are moot as the claim amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under new prior art discussed above.
Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed 10/16/2025.
Applicant alleges unexpected results of the claimed range, citing improvements to output characteristics and cycle characteristics in an all-solid state battery having binder particles having a cohesion of 1-9.5% (Remarks pp. 5-6)
While these arguments and evidences of unexpected results has been considered, they have not been found persuasive because the claims as presented are incommensurate in scope with the experimental conditions at which the unexpected results are observed (MPEP 716.02 (d)).
As non-limited examples, Applicant experimental data has only been provided using graphite as the negative electrode active material ([0121]) and LiCoO2 as the positive electrode active material ([0119]). It is not known whether these unexpected results would be reproduced in an all-solid-state battery using different negative electrode materials; for example, silicon-based negative electrode active materials are known to undergo more significant changes in volume expansion during charge/discharge than graphite and would appear to necessitate a different degree of adhesion or flexibility (corresponding to a different cohesion value); the specific type of electrode material is not recited in the claims presented.
Applicant also cites a method of producing the electrodes using dry blending ([0006-0007]) indicated to be affected by the cohesion of the binder particles ([0023]). It is not clear whether the cited unexpected results may achieved using a binder having the claimed cohesion range without the use of Applicant’s dry-blending preparation method to produce the electrodes.
Conclusion
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 2/17/2026