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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/17/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are amended; claim(s) 4–9 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 3 has/have been canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 09/18/25 has been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as established below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informality: in line 15, “unit represented by formula (3) is 2–11 mol% 2–11 mol% 4 mol% or more and 20 mol% or less.” Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant of 37 CFR 1.121, which requires amended claims’ text to be presented with markings to indicate the changes made relative to the immediately prior version of the claims. Examiner notes that the strikethrough of “2 mol% of more …” versus the immediately prior claim set’s “4 mol% or more …” seems inadvertent, and the response otherwise appears to be a bona fide reply and, thus, appears complete.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4–9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinpara et al. (US 20160156024 A1, from 05/19/22 IDS) (Kinpara), taken alone or in view of Huang et al. (Partially Neutralized Polyacrylic Acid/Poly(vinyl alcohol) Blends as Effective Binders for High-Performance Silicon Anodes in Lithium-Ion Batteries) (Huang).
Regarding claims 1 and 4–9, Kinpara discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g., Title, ¶ 0112) comprising an electrode (negative electrode, e.g., Abstract) comprising a mixture (negative electrode mixture, e.g., Abstract) comprising an active material of a carbon material and silicon (e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0128) and a binder comprising a polymer compound (copolymer of, e.g., Abstract and Prep. Ex. 1/2 (applied to electrode of Ex. 1, ¶ 0128), ¶ 0122–0124),
wherein the polymer compound contains repeating units represented by the recited formulae (1) and (2) (methyl acrylate and vinyl acetate (saponified to (1) alkali-metal-neutralized acrylate and (2) vinyl alcohol, respectively, per NaOH addition in ¶ 0123 and as seen in reaction scheme annotated below from ¶ 0051 besides Na salt instead of K), respectively, ¶ 0122 and 0123), wherein, in formula (1) R1 is H, and M is an alkali metal atom of Na (through NaOH’s hydrolyzing the acrylate, ¶ 0124).
PNG
media_image1.png
151
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kinpara is silent to the recited third unit at 2–11 mol% based on a total molar ratio of the repeating units constituting the polymer compound; however, Kinpara discloses a substantially similar preparation method compared to the instant specification.
Specifically, Kinpara discloses saponifying, in a nitrogen-gas atmosphere, a mixture of 1 g of 88%-saponified PVA, 104 g methyl acrylate, and 155 g vinyl acetate (i.e., ~ 4:6 acrylate:vinyl alcohol molar ratio, as seen in ¶ 0122 and 0125) with 450 g methanol, 420 g H2O, and 132 g NaOH, followed by drying at 70°C for six hours (Prep. Ex. 1/2, ¶ 0122 and 0123). Similarly, the instant binder is produced by saponifying, in a nitrogen-gas atmosphere, a mixture of 1 g of 88%-saponified PVA, 51.8 g methyl acrylate, and 208 g vinyl acetate (i.e., ~ 2:8 acrylate:vinyl alcohol molar ratio, as seen in instant Table 1’s Ex. 1) with 450 g methanol, 420 g H2O, and 132 g NaOH, followed by drying at 70°C for eight hours (instant spec., e.g., Prod. Ex. 1, ¶ 0065).
Further, the polymer of instant Prod. Ex. 1—with 70°C drying for eight hours—comprises 2 mol% of the formula (3) unit, while Kinpara’s Prod. Ex. 1/2 was dried at the same temperature for 75% of this time (note that, per the instant specification, ¶ 0036, drying temperature and time are parameters controlling the formula (3) unit’s formation, which, as seen in Exs. 1–3 and Comp. Ex. 1 (using binder of Prep. Exs. 1–4, respectively), appear to directly correlate to the amount of formula (3) unit such that higher temperature, at a given drying time, appears to produce more of the formula (3) unit). Moreover, as seen in instant Table 1’s Ex. 1 (based on instant Prod. Ex. 1), 2 mol% of the formula (1) unit is lactonized to the formula (3) unit.
Therefore, as Kinpara’s method differs only in that a) formula (1) monomer’s molar content is twice as high and b) drying occurs for 75% of the instant specification’s time—both of which appear directly proportional to how much of the formula (3) unit is produced, as discussed above and based on the instant examples and Table 1—it appears that Kinpara’s polymer’s formula (1) unit would lactonize to the formula (3) unit substantially similarly to the instant disclosure such that Kinpara’s polymer would contain the formula (3) unit at ~ (original production mol%)*(Kinpara’s drying time)*(Kinpara’s 2x formula (1) molar content) ≈ 2*0.75*2 ≈ 3 mol%.
Accordingly, based on the above disclosure, Kinpara’s polymer would seemingly contain the formula (3) unit at a value falling within or at least overlapping the instant 2–11 mol%, per MPEP 2112.01 (I). Such overlap would render the recited range obvious such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Arguendo, even if not falling within or overlapping the recited range, Kinpara’s method would reasonably produce unit (3) at a content extremely close to the recited 2–11 mol%. Absent demonstrated criticality, then, the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance at, e.g., 1% or 1.5% of unit (3) from the prior art compared to, e.g., 2% from the recited range (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further assuming, arguendo, that Kinpara’s Prep. Ex. 1/2 produced the formula (3) unit at a lower content than ~ 3%, Kinpara generally discloses a molar ratio between the formulae (1) and (2) units, i.e., acrylate and vinyl alcohol, respectively, of 5–95:5–95 for proper binder retentivity (¶ 0054). Additionally or alternatively, Huang teaches cross-linked PVA-PAA binders for battery anodes (Abstract), teaching that PAA is effective for Si-based electrodes due to H-bonding with Si, also displaying high capacity and long cyclability compared to traditional binders such as PVDF (p. 6890, left col., 1st ¶). Huang further teaches that to improve PAA’s mechanical flexibility, PVA, which is nontoxic and mechanically robust, can connect to the PAA through H-bonding and cross-linking (p. 6891, left col., 1st ¶).
Huang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely PAA-PVA anode binders.
To balance proper binder retentivity alongside Huang’s respective benefits of PVA and PAA, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant molar ranges of formulae (1) and (2) by routinely optimizing the formula (1):formula (2) content ratio (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Importantly, then, in optimizing the (1):(2) ratio while producing a seemingly nonzero content of the formula (3) unit, it seems that the skilled artisan, when adjusting the (1):(2) ratio, would necessarily have had to account for and, thus, optimize the formula (3) content and, accordingly, routinely arrive at the recited 2–11 mol% formula (3), per MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kinpara discloses the binder for a secondary battery according to claim 1.
Although failing to specify a unit-(3) content of 4–11 mol%, based on the above rationale, Kinpara’s method would reasonably produce a unit-(3) content very close to 4–11 mol%, absent evidence otherwise, such that the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance at, e.g., 1% or 1.5% of unit (3) from the prior art compared to, e.g., 4% from the recited range, absent demonstrated criticality to 4–11 mol% (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the (1)/(2) ratio, as directed by Kinpara/Huang, which would have forced the skilled artisan to account for and, thus, optimize the unit-(3) content (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Although Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s narrowing claim 1’s polymer units’ weight ratios to be commensurate with the data in Table 1 to support the allegedly unexpected results, Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant is yet to prove criticality of the instant unit-(3)’s 2–11 mol%. Though Applicant asserts that Comp. Ex. 1, with peel strength 0.21 N/15 mm at unit-(3) content of 1 mol%, establishes criticality, Examiner respectfully reiterates that, per MPEP 716.02(d), to demonstrate criticality across a range, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range and, thus, both above and below the claimed range. The comparative examples, however, only test the formula (3) unit’s content below 2%, and there are no examples testing greater than 11%. Therefore, absent additional data, it is indeterminable whether higher binding force would be expected with the increasing formula-(3) content across the entire scope of 2–11%—i.e., whether a substantial difference exists post-11% at, e.g., 12%—and, thus, whether this range yields both unexpected and superior binding force.
Assuming, arguendo, that the results were unexpected and superior, Examiner respectfully observes that the results remain incommensurate with the claimed scope at least because claim 1 is to a binder, whereas the binding-force results stem from incorporating the binder into a negative electrode slurry coated onto copper foil (instant spec., ¶ 0070 & 0075). Moreover, the skilled artisan would understand that the allegedly superior binding force would directly correlate to the binder content in the electrode. As claim 1 (or claim 7 to the electrode) would allow any binder content in the electrode, it is unclear if the instant binding force would occur at, e.g., 1 ppb binder. Thus, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is further unpersuasive.
Applicant again argues that Kinpara fails to disclose or suggest the advantageous binding force. However, Examiner respectfully reiterates that, based on Kinpara’s substantially similar method, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected Kinpara’s binder to form the instant unit (3) at a molar ratio falling within or at least encompassing claim 1’s range, absent additional evidence (MPEP 2112.01 (I)). Further, Examiner echoes that Kinpara generally discloses a suitable ratio of formulae (1) and (2) units of 5–95:5–95 for proper binder retentivity, while Huang further motivates the skilled artisan to optimize within this range to balance PVA and PAA’s effects. Thus, it appears that, when optimizing within Kinpara’s range—while considering that Kinpara’s substantially similar method appears to produce at least a nonzero amount of formula (3) (see claim 1)—it seems that the skilled artisan would have needed to implicitly account for and, thus, optimize the formula (3) content.
Accordingly, it seems that the binder of Kinpara, taken alone or modified by Huang, would achieve substantially similar binding force. Per MPEP 2145 (II), Applicant’s recognizing another advantage that would flow naturally from following the prior art’s suggestions cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/23/2026