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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended, Claims 1-19 are pending. Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4, and 7-10, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (WO 202022195 A1 - English equivalent US 20210083323 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Mimura” in view of Ma et al. (CN107452983A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Ma”. Mimura and Ma et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolyte compositions.
In regard to Claim 1-2, 4 and 7-8, Mimura et al. discloses an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition for an all-solid state secondary battery, comprising: an inorganic solid electrolyte having an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table, a polymer binder and a dispersion medium (Mimura, Abstract).
Mimura et al. also discloses a metal element-containing compound wherein the metal element-containing compound is dispersed in the dispersion medium (Mimura, Paragraphs [0254, 0272]), which may be a lithium transition metal oxide a lithium alloy, or a metal capable of forming an alloy with lithium (Mimura, Paragraph [0272]) and that the polymer binder is dissolved in the dispersion medium (Mimura, Paragraph [0254]), where the metal element-containing compound is present in a solid state (Mimura, Paragraph [0272, 0277]). Mimura further discloses specific examples wherein the dispersion medium is Butyl Butyrate (Mimura, Table 2) and polymer binders that include constitutional components that carry hydroxy and carboxy functional groups (Mimura, B-3, B-5, B-7-10). However, the lithium metal element containing compound is an active material and by definition would only release the Li ion electrochemically during charging and discharging and would not otherwise interact with the polymer in the slurry. Thus, Mimura et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metal element-containing compound is a compound that is capable of supplying, as an ion, a metal element constituting a molecule to a polymer that forms the polymer binder.
Ma et al. discloses a beneficial inorganic sulfide solid electrolyte containing composition comprising a polymer binder, a dispersion medium and the addition of a metal element containing compound comprising Lithium Stearate present in a solid state (Ma, Abstract, [72], Claims 3-4). The Lithium Stearate added as a metal element containing compound to the solid electrolyte containing composition as taught in Ma et al. has the benefit of providing the plastic deformation of the organic lithium salt which has good promoting effect for the ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Ma, Abstract). Further, according to the current application, Lithium Stearate is a compound that is capable of supplying, as an ion, a metal element constituting a molecule to a polymer that forms the polymer binder, which is also an organic metal salt that constitutes a metal element belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table, includes a lithium element (Original Specification, Example 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a metal element containing compound comprising the organic metal salt of Lithium Stearate as taught in Ma et al. to the solid electrolyte composition disclosed in Mimura as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Ma, and as doing so would be an obvious additive to try and would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Finally, while Mimura in view of Ma discloses a solid electrolyte composition comprising a polymer binder, a butyl butyrate dispersion medium and a metal element containing compound comprising lithium stearate, it is silent as to the polymer and the ion reacting through a salt exchange reaction. However, the current application describes a salt exchange reaction only as an example of how interaction may occur not as a mandatory mechanism for all embodiments such as the binder forming polymer is capable of receiving a metal ion by a chemical reaction, chemical or physical adsorption or the like (Original Specification, [0125]).
Mimura et al. discloses synthesized binders including hydroxy and carboxy functional groups (Mimura, B-3, B-5, B-7-10), and polymer binders with these functional groups are also disclosed in the current application as Group (A) functional groups which when provided “easily interacts with a metal element-containing compound and particularly, easily undergoes a salt exchange reaction.” (Original Specification [0045]). Next, Mimura discloses acrylic acid type carboxylic acid polymer binders (Mimura, B-3, B-5, B-7-10), which are known to have a pka around 4.25 and Ma’s lithium stearate has pka of around 4.8-4.9, and according to the current application when a pka of the conjugate acid of the anion is higher than the pka of the polymer functional group a salt exchange reaction is more likely to occur (Original Specification [0046]). Lastly, Mimura’s processing of the composition involves a drying step at 80°C for 2 hours to reduce excess dispersion medium (Mimura, [0327, 0407]) and the current application discloses “heating was carried out at 800C for 2 hours to dry (remove the dispersion medium and cause a salt exchange reaction to occur)” (Original Specification [0198]). Therefore, given the conditions and the materials selected in Mimura in view of Ma the skilled artisan would reasonably expect a salt exchange reaction to occur and would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result.
In regard to Claim 9, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. Mimura et al. discloses a polymer binder selected from embodiments including a polyurethane resin, a polyurea resin, a polyamide resin, a polyimide resin, a polyester resin, a typical polyether resin, a polycarbonate resin, a cellulose derivative resin, a fluorine-containing resin, a hydrocarbon-based thermoplastic resin, a polyvinyl resin, and a (meth)acrylic resin (Mimura, Paragraph [0134]), which by definition have in a main chain, at least one bond selected from a urethane bond, a urea bond, an amide bond, an imide bond, or an ester bond, or a polymerized chain of carbon-carbon double bond. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polymer binder that has in a main chain, at least one bond selected from a urethane bond, a urea bond, an amide bond, an imide bond, or an ester bond, or a polymerized chain of carbon-carbon double bond as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 10, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. Mimura et al. discloses a polymer binder selected from a (meth)acrylic compound (Mimura, Paragraph [0143]) and also a cyano group, a carboxy group, a hydroxy group, a mercapto group, a sulfonate group, a phosphate group, a phosphonate group (Mimura, Paragraph [0146]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polymer binder that contains a constitutional component having a functional group selected from the following Group (A) of functional groups, <Group (A) of functional groups> a hydroxy group, an amino group, a carboxy group, a sulfo group, a phosphate group, a phosphonate group, a sulfanyl group, a heterocyclic group, and a carboxylic acid anhydride group, as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 13, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. Mimura describes heating the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition to 80°C or higher so that the dispersion medium can be removed to make the composition enter a solid state, i.e. a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium after heating is lower than a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium before heating, making it easier to separate and form applied and dried layers (Mimura, Paragraph [0365]), which is the same purpose disclosed in the Original Specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0128]). Mimura et al. also discloses providing of a methyl methacrylate binder dispersed in butyl butyrate (Mimura, Paragraph [0392]), which is the same combination that achieves a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium after heating is lower than a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium before heating (Original Specification, Example 2). Thus, the skilled artisan would find it obvious during heating to high temperatures that the polymer binder would reasonably be expected to decompose, volatize or carbonize and therefore, provide an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition wherein the solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium after heating is lower than a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium before heating, and as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 14, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. Mimura et al. discloses a solid electrolyte-containing composition comprising a methyl methacrylate binder dispersed in butyl butyrate (Mimura, Paragraph 0392]) which is the same binder and dispersion medium disclosed in the original specification (Original Specification, Example 2). Further, a drying step of the composition at 80°C is disclosed which increases the concentration of the solid materials as the dispersion medium evaporates (Mimura, Paragraph [0365]) and thus a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium after concentration is lower than a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium before concentration (Mimura, Example 1). However, Mimura is silent as to the total mass % of the polymer binder and the metal element containing compound.
Ma et al. discloses an example wherein the mass % of the binder can be calculated in the range of 1.19-2.91% (Ma, [72]) and the mass % of the metal element containing compound (Lithium Stearate) in the range of 0.1-50% (Ma, Claim 8), which is consistent with the total of 10.5 mass % of the binder material and the metal element containing compound in the original specification (Original Specification, Example 2). Further, the original specification also discloses that the effect of the solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium after concentration being lower than a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium before concentration is achieved by the same example (Original Specification, Example 2) with the same mass % ratios as taught in Ma and that regardless of whether the composition after the application is heated to a drying temperature of 80*C or higher, or concentrated to a concentration of 30% by mass or more, the same effect would be achieved (Original Specification, Paragraph [0212]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polymer binder and metal element containing compound in the mass % as taught in Ma and heat the composition to 80°C or more as taught in Mimura, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the effect of a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium after processing is lower than a solubility of the polymer binder in the dispersion medium before processing regardless of the concentration. Further, when the same material is used in a composition that undergoes the same process conditions, it is reasonable to conclude that the resulting final product will exhibit the same characteristics, In re Best, F.2d 1252 (C.C.P.A. 1977) see MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In regard to Claim 15, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. Mimura et al. describes heating the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition so that the dispersion medium can be removed to make the composition enter a solid state, i.e. a solubility of the polymer binder present in the layer in the dispersion medium contained in the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, is lower than a solubility of the polymer binder contained in the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition in the dispersion medium, making it easier to separate and form applied and dried layers (Mimura, Paragraphs [0327, 0365]) which is the same process performed on the same materials for the same purpose disclosed in the Original Specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a film of the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition with the materials as taught in Mimura, after a preparation as taught in Mimura, which exhibit the same properties as disclosed in Mimura, as doing so would be nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 16, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. While Mimura discloses an active material in the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, it does so in that the metal element containing compound is the active material. Ma et al. discloses an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition that comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte, a polymer binder, a dispersion medium, a metal element containing compound and additionally an active material depending on whether the slurry formulation of the invention is being used to fabricate a solid electrolyte or an electrode (Ma, [71]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an active material in the solid electrolyte-containing composition at the discretion of the skilled artisan, as doing so would be nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 17, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. While Mimura discloses an active material and a conductive agent in the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, it does so in that the metal element containing compound is the active material. Ma et al. discloses an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition that comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte, a polymer binder, a dispersion medium, a metal element containing compound and additionally an active material and conductive agent depending on whether the slurry formulation of the invention is being used to fabricate a solid electrolyte or an electrode (Ma, [71-72]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an active material and conductive agent in the solid electrolyte-containing composition at the discretion of the skilled artisan, as doing so would be nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 18, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. Mimura et al. discloses an inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition wherein the inorganic solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (Mimura, Paragraph [0069]) and discloses a specific example of LPS (Mimura, Example 1) which is the same material selected in the original specification (Original Specification, Table 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a sulfide based solid electrolyte in the composition, as doing so would be obvious to try and would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 19, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. Mimura et al. discloses the use of LPS as an organic solid electrolyte (Mimura, Example 1) with Butyl butyrate as a dispersion medium (Mimura, Table 2), polymer binders with a carboxy functional group (Mimura. Paragraph [0062]), synthesized by a variety of techniques (Mimura, C-1 - C-12) and a metal element containing compound with a Lithium metal active material (Mimura, Paragraph [0073]). Ma et al. teaches the use of Lithium Stearate as a beneficial metal element containing compound with a reason to combine with the solid electrolyte containing composition as disclosed in Mimura as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above regarding Claim 1.
This combination of materials and preparation methods is substantially identical to the examples in the original specification (Original Specification, Table 3, S-8 - S-10) which have a disclosed value of a viscosity at a temperature of 23°C and a shear rate of 10 /s of 100 to 2,600 cP, which falls within the claimed range of 300 to 4,000 cP. Further, when the same material is used in a composition in the same proportions and undergo the same process conditions, it is reasonable to conclude that the resulting final product will exhibit the same characteristics, In re Best, F.2d 1252 (C.C.P.A. 1977) see MPEP 2112.01 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the materials taught in Mimura and Ma for the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition, which would reasonably exhibit a centipoise (cP) within the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (WO 202022195 A1 - English equivalent US 20210083323 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Mimura” in view of Ma et al. (CN107452983A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Ma” as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Furusawa et al. (US 20210320325 A1), hereinafter “Furusawa”. Mimura, Ma and Furusawa et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolyte compositions.
In regard to Claim 3, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. While Mimura et al. discloses the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte particles and polymer binder particles, it is silent as to the particle diameter of the metal element containing compound as is Ma et al. Furusawa et al. discloses the use of a metal element containing compound in a solid electrolyte containing composition including the use of Lithium Stearate, with a preferable range of particle diameter of 3µm-5µm which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1µm-5µm (Furusawa, Paragraphs [0091, 0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5-6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (WO 202022195 A1 - English equivalent US 20210083323 A1 cited for reference), hereinafter “Mimura” in view of Ma et al. (CN107452983A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Ma” as applied to Claim 1 and 10 above and as evidenced by Loften et al. (J. Dairy Sci. 97 :4661–4674 2014), hereinafter “Loften”. Mimura and Ma et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolyte compositions.
In regard to Claim 5, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. While Mimura et al. discloses a metal element containing compound, it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metal element-containing compound has an anion of which a conjugate acid has a negative common logarithm [pKa] of an acid dissociation constant of -2 to 20. Ma et al. discloses a metal element containing compound of Lithium Stearate (Ma, Claims 3-4) which has a Stearate anion, of which the conjugate acid is Stearic acid, of which has a negative common logarithm [pKa] of an acid dissociation constant of 4.78 as evidenced by Loften et al. (Loften, Page 4661), which falls within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a metal element containing compound such as Lithium Stearate disclosed in Ma with comprises an anion of which a conjugate acid has a negative common logarithm [pKa] of an acid dissociation constant of -2 to 20 as doing so would be nothing more than a variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 6, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 1. While Mimura et al. discloses a metal element containing compound, it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metal element containing compound has an anion derived from an organic compound containing 6 to 21 carbon atoms. Ma et al. discloses a metal element containing compound of Lithium Stearate which has a Stearate anion, of which is derived from Stearic Acid, which contains 18 carbon atoms as evidenced by Loften et al. (Loften, Page 4661). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a metal element containing compound such as Lithium Stearate disclosed in Ma comprising an anion derived from an organic compound containing 6 to 21 carbon atoms, as doing so would be nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 11, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 10. While Mimura et al. discloses a metal element containing compound, it fails to explicitly disclose wherein a pKa of a conjugate acid from which an anion contained in the metal element-containing compound is derived is larger than a pKa of the functional group. Ma et al. discloses a metal element containing compound of Lithium Stearate (Ma, Claims 3-4) which has a Stearate anion, of which the conjugate acid is Stearic acid, of which has a negative common logarithm [pKa] of an acid dissociation constant of 4.78 as evidenced by Loften et al. (Loften, Page 4661). Ma et al. discloses Lithium Stearate and a binder (Ma, Claims 3-4, [72]). Methacrylic acid which is structurally related before esterfication has a pka of 4.66 which is less than the pka of the conjugate acid from the anion of the metal element containing compound. Further, it is not accurate to reference a single value pka of a functional group as a whole because pka is a property of the entire molecule, not just the group, and each functional group will have a range of possible pka values.
For example, Mimura et al. discloses the use of a polymer binder selected from functional groups of at least carboxy, sulfonate, phosphate, and phosphonate (Mimura, Paragraph [0067]) which have pka's that range from -3 to 12 and could reasonably encompass a polymeric binder with a pka value less than the pka of the conjugate acid from which an anion contained in the metal element-containing compound is derived. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a conjugate acid from which an anion contained in the metal element-containing compound is derived that has a larger pka than a polymer binder that falls within a functional group as disclosed in Mimura with a known pka range, and would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 12, Mimura et al. in view of Ma et al. discloses the inorganic solid electrolyte-containing composition according to Claim 10. While Mimura et al. discloses a metal element containing compound, it fails to explicitly disclose wherein a difference between the pKa of the conjugate acid from which the anion contained in the metal element-containing compound is derived and the pKa of the functional group [(the pKa of the conjugate acid) - (the pKa of the functional group)] is 2 or more. Ma et al. discloses a metal element containing compound of Lithium Stearate (Ma, Claims 3-4) which has a Stearate anion, of which the conjugate acid is Stearic acid, of which has a negative common logarithm [pKa] of an acid dissociation constant of 4.78 as evidenced by Loften et al. (Loften, Page 4661).
Further, it is not accurate to reference a single value pka of a functional group as a whole because pka is a property of the entire molecule, not just the group, and each functional group will have a range of possible pka values. For example, Mimura et al. discloses the use of a polymer binder selected from functional groups of at least carboxy, sulfonate, phosphate, and phosphonate (Mimura, Paragraph [0067]) which have pka's that range from -3 to 12 and could reasonably encompass a polymeric binder with a pka value 2 or more less than the pka of the conjugate acid from which an anion contained in the metal element-containing compound is derived. In this case, if the skilled artisan selected a compositional component from the sulfonate functional group, the pka would be in the range of -3 to 1.9 and the Lithium Stearate taught in Ma has a pka of 4.78 and 4.78 - 1.9 = 2.88 and 4.78 - (-3) = 7.78 which satisfies the claimed pka range of the metal element containing compounds anion conjugate acid having a pka of 2 or more as compared to the functional group in the polymer binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a polymer with a constitutional component in the sulfonate group as disclosed in Mimura et al. as doing so would be obvious to try and would be nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot as the new grounds of rejection does not rely on the Sakamoto reference, which is the basis for the arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record. In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim 1 and against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the limitation of the polymer and the ion reacting through a salt exchange reaction added to amended claim 1 has been evaluated and rejected in the 35 U.S.C. rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights