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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 22, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; and claims 4-5 and 13-21 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-3, 6-12, and 22-26 pending for examination.
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:
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rika, et al. (JP 2014049209 A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 22, Rika teaches an aqueous electrode binder containing a water-soluble polymer (¶ [0009], Ln. 105-111). The water-soluble polymer contains hydrophobic moieties and polar (hydrophilic) moieties in a well-balanced manner (¶ [0023], Ln. 328-329). The weight-average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer must be 500,000 or more (¶ [0024], Ln. 337), and is preferably 900,000 to 1,800,000 (¶ [0024], Ln. 347). Rika teaches that the soap-free emulsion polymerization method makes to possible to easily polymerize a high molecular weight copolymer at high concentration (¶ [0034], Ln. 482-484).
Rika also teaches that the content of compounds having both a hydrophilic portion and hydrophobic portion and having a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 or less is 0.5% by mass or less (¶ [0028], Ln. 378-381, Ln. 385-387). The content of compounds having a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 or less of 0.5% by mass or less also indicates the content of compounds having a weight-average molecular weight of 50,000 or less (low molecular weight polymer) is 0.5% by mass or less. Rika teaches that when the content of components derived from low molecular weight compounds is low, the water-soluble polymer has improved adhesion (¶ [0009], Ln. 114-116).
Rika teaches that the water-soluble polymer contains structural unit (a), structural unit (b), and structural unit (c). Structural unit (a) represents an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylate monomer (hydrophilic unit introduced by hydrophilic monomer and containing a carboxyl group) (¶ [0014], Ln. 168-169). The content of structural unit (a) (hydrophilic unit) in the water-soluble polymer is 30-60% by mass, within the claimed range of 30-70% (¶ [0019], Ln. 281-282). Structural unit (b) represents an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid ester monomer (hydrophobic unit introduced by lipophilic monomer) (¶ [0016], Ln. 207-209). The content of structural unit (b) (hydrophobic unit) in the water-soluble polymer is 40-70% by mass, within the claimed range of 30-70% (¶ [0020], Ln. 295-296).
The monomers are polymerized in water using a polymerization initiator (¶ [0034], Ln. 472-473) and neutralized using an alkali metal salt such as lithium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide (lye) (¶ [0045], Ln. 624-626) in order to form the water-soluble polymer (dissolves in water). Rika teaches that after the neutralization, the resulting homogenous aqueous solution is transparent (¶ [0045], Ln. 636-637).
Rika does not expressly teach that a content of compounds having a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 or less (medium-low molecular weight polymer) is between 0.8% and 5% by weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the water-soluble polymer of Rika to include components with a molecular weight between 50,000 and 100,000 at a higher content than 0.5% by weight, including a content within 0.8-1%. As Rika teaches that when the content of components derived from low molecular weight compounds is low, the water-soluble polymer has improved adhesion, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try similar amounts to the range taught by Rika in order to determine a level that achieves the improved adhesion. Rika does not expressly teach adverse effects of a water-soluble polymer including components with a molecular between 50,000 and 100,000 at a slightly higher content than 0.5%, such as 1%. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try adjusting the content of components with a molecular weight between 50,000 and 100,000 with reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 (I)(E)).
Regarding claim 2, Rika teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Rika teaches that the content of structural unit (a) (hydrophilic unit) in the water-soluble polymer is 30-60% by mass, overlapping the claimed range of 40-60% (¶ [0019], Ln. 281-282), and the content of structural unit (b) (hydrophobic unit) in the water-soluble polymer is 40-70% by mass, overlapping the claimed range of 40-60% (¶ [0020], Ln. 295-296). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 7-9, Rika teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches mixing 77 parts by mass of methacrylic acid (H2C=C(CH3)COOH) (hydrophilic monomer having the structural formula CHR3=CR4R5, wherein R3 is H, R4 is CH3, and R5 is COOH), 98.3 parts by mass of ethyl acrylate (CH2=CHCOOC2H5) (lipophilic monomer having the structural formal CH2=CR1R2, wherein R1 is H and R2 is COOCH2CH3), 44 parts by mass of methyl acrylate (CH2=CHCOOCH3) (lipophilic monomer having the structural formal CH2=CR1R2, wherein R1 is H and R2 is COOCH3), and 0.66 parts by mass of 1,6-hexane diacrylate (lipophilic monomer) to form the water-soluble polymer of Example 1 (¶ [0090], Ln. 1274-1278).
Regarding claim 10, Rika teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above. Rika does not expressly teach an example in which the hydrophilic monomer further comprises at least one of the compounds listed in claim 10. Rika does teach that the water-soluble polymer contains a structural unit (c) in addition to structural units (a) and (b), which is a polymerizable monomer (¶ [0018], Ln. 247-251). Structural unit (c) may include (meth)acrylamide-based monomers such as N,N-dimethylacrylamide (¶ [0018], Ln. 252-254). Additionally, Rika teaches that one, two, or more types of polymerizable monomers may be used in the water-soluble polymer (¶ [0018], Ln. 266-267). Rika teaches that a water-soluble polymer with the presented composition has improved adhesion (¶ [0009], Ln. 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the water-soluble polymer taught in example 1 of Rika to include an additional polymerizable monomer such as N,N-dimethylacrylamide as taught by Rika. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to improve adhesion.
Regarding claim 12, Rika teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches that the content of structural unit (a) (hydrophilic unit) in the water-soluble polymer is 30-60% by mass (¶ [0019], Ln. 281-282) and the content of structural unit (b) (hydrophobic unit) in the water-soluble polymer is 40-70% by mass (¶ [0020], Ln. 295-296). Specifically, example 2 teaches using 99 parts by mass of methacrylic acid, 120.3 parts by mass of ethyl acrylate, and 0.66 parts by mass of 1,6-hexane diacrylate (¶ [0091], Ln. 1310-1312), resulting in a weight percentage ratio of hydrophilic monomer to lipophilic monomer of 45:55.
Regarding claims 23-24, Rika teaches an aqueous binder including the water-soluble polymer of claim 1 that, after neutralization, the pH of the water-soluble polymer is between 6.2 and 9 (¶ [0046], Ln. 643-644). Specifically, example 1 teaches adjusting the pH of the water-soluble polymer to 7 (¶ [0090], Ln. 1284-1287).
Regarding claim 25, Rika teaches all of the limitations of claim 23, and further teaches that the water-soluble polymer may be used in combination with a dispersant (¶ [0052], Ln. 723-724).
Regarding claim 26, Rika teaches a negative electrode composition comprising the aqueous binder meeting the limitations of claim 23 above and a negative electrode active material (¶ [0073], Ln. 1030-1033).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rika, et al. (JP 2014049209 A) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Weizhong, et al. (CN 1328102 A, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 11, Rika teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above. Rika does not expressly teach hydrophilic and lipophilic monomers with the specific combinations of compounds listed in the claim. Rika does teach that structural unit (a) includes ethylenically unsaturated carboxylate monomers, which include acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, and the salts of each, and can be used alone or in combination of two or more (¶ [0014], Ln. 168-172, 191-192), structural unit (b) includes ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid ester monomers, which include acrylates and methacrylates (¶ [0016], Ln. 207-209, 214-215), and can be used alone or in combination of two or more (¶ [0017], Ln. 242-243), and structural unit (c) includes other polymerizable monomers including styrene, methacrylic acid amide, N,N-dimethyl(meth)acrylamide, and vinyl acetate, and can be used alone or in combination of two or more (¶ [0018], Ln. 252-255, 266-267). Additionally, Rika teaches that because the water-polymer has hydrophobic moieties and polar moieties in a well-balanced matter, it has excellent dispersion stability in an active material (¶ [0023], Ln. 328-330).
Weizhong teaches an aqueous binder for a lithium-ion secondary battery (¶ [0001], Ln. 14-15) that includes hydrophilic and lipophilic monomers (¶ [0007], Ln. 75-76). Additionally, Weizhong teaches that one, two, or more hydrophilic and lipophilic monomers can be selected as raw materials for the preparation of the aqueous binder (¶ [0016], Ln. 142-143, 150-152). Weizhong does not expressly teach the specific combinations of compounds for the hydrophilic and lipophilic monomers as listed in claim 11, however, Weizhong teaches a general structural formula for lipophilic monomers and multiple embodiments with examples of lipophilic monomers including acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, styrene, methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, n-butyl acrylate, vinyl acetate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, and n-butyl methacrylate (¶ [0016], Ln. 144-150; Embodiments 1-26), and a general structural formula for hydrophilic monomers and multiple embodiments with examples of hydrophilic monomers including acrylic acid, N-vinylpyrrolidone, and acrylamide (¶ [0016], Ln. 136-141; Embodiments 1-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combinations of lipophilic and hydrophilic monomers, such as by using one of the claimed combinations of compounds, based on the teachings of Rika and Weizhong. In looking at the first combination of compounds taught in claim 11, all of the compounds included are provided in the teachings of Weizhong. Additionally, both Rika and Weizhong teach that multiple combinations of hydrophilic and lipophilic monomers are possible. It would have been obvious to combine the compositions taught in the prior art to be used for the same purpose of producing an aqueous binder for a battery (MPEP 2144.06 (I)). Based on the examples provided, it would be reasonable to combine hydrophilic and hydrophobic monomers in many combinations, including those listed in claim 11. One would be motivated to combine hydrophilic and hydrophobic monomers in order to produce an aqueous binder with hydrophobic moieties and polar moieties in a well-balanced matter, which would have excellent dispersion stability in an active material for a battery.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 to include the limitation that the battery binder is transparent, the previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Rika, et al. (JP 2014049209 A) has been modified above. Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that: the product of Rika is an emulsion and is therefore not transparent; and that the battery binder of the instant invention has advantages over the polymer of Rika including better adhesion strength between an electrode active material and a current collector, better buffering capacity, higher slurry stability, better compatibility with other components, and better flexibility.
With respect to the argument, see page 7 of the remarks filed April 22, 2026 and the declaration filed April 22, 2026, that the product of Rika is an emulsion and is therefore not transparent, this argument is not persuasive. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed April 22, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of amended claim 1. Firstly, Rika expressly teaches that after the neutralization, the resulting homogenous aqueous solution is transparent (¶ [0045], Ln. 636-637). While it is acknowledged that embodiment 1 of Rika has been reproduced and compared to embodiment 1 of the instant invention in the declaration filed, it is noted that a single embodiment of the reference has been reproduced while other embodiments are taught. Additionally, the image provided as evidence that the product of Rika is not transparent shows a large beaker. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine from the image shown the degree of transparency of the product, or whether a smaller amount or thin layer of the product, such as the amount that would be used in a battery application, would have a higher degree of transparency. Further, the term transparent allows for varying degrees of transparency, which is not specified in the instant specification or the amended claim. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
With respect to the argument, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, that the battery binder of the instant invention has advantages over the polymer of Rika including better adhesion strength between an electrode active material and a current collector, better buffering capacity, higher slurry stability, better compatibility with other components, and better flexibility, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the transparent battery binder of the present invention has the listed advantages over the emulsion of Rika, however, as stated above, Rika teaches that the aqueous solution including the water-soluble polymer is transparent. Additionally, Rika teaches that using the water-soluble polymer as a binder provides excellent dispersion stability, film-forming ability, adhesion to the substrate, and flexibility (¶ [0071], Ln. 1007-1010, ¶ [0080], Ln. 1145-1147). In the event that the Applicant intends to present a showing of unexpected results, a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting Applicant’s position is necessary. See MPEP 716.02(b). An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 716.02(e).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights