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 11/13/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-3 and 6-10 has been withdrawn.
In view if the amendment the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn and the addition of claims 13 and 14 has been acknowledged.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otaki et. al. (US20190013541 as cited in the IDS dated 11/23/22) in view of Ueda (US US20100068628A1).
Regarding claim 1, Otaki discloses an electrode composition for an all-solid state secondary battery, comprising:
a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte having an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group 1, in this case lithium ion conductivity (¶[0052]);
a polymer binder (¶[0148] including PVdf);
an active material (¶[0148], Si particles); and
a dispersion medium (¶[0148], butyl butrate solvent),
wherein the active material has a specific surface area of 13.9 m2/g and 14.2 13.9 m2/g for examples 4 and 5 (¶[0184], Fig. 2), and
but does not disclose a polymer that forms the polymer binder has a constitutional component derived from a (meth)acrylic monomer which has an SP value of 19.0 MPa1/2 or more.
Ueda, related to lithium ion solid state batteries, teaches polymethyl methacrylate, which has a SP value of 19.4 per the instant specification(¶[0067]), may be used in place of PVdf(¶[0148]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting polymethyl methacrylate of Ueda for the PVdf of Otaki would have yielded the predictable result of a suitable electrode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted polymethyl methacrylate for PVdf to yield the predictable result of a suitable electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, wherein the polymer binder is dissolved in the dispersion medium (¶[0148], see binder is made as a solution which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as dissolved).
Regarding claim 3, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, wherein the active material has a silicon element as a constitutional element (¶[0148]).
Regarding claim 6 and 14, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, wherein a polymer that forms the polymer binder is a polymethyl methacrylate (¶[0148]) with an SP value of 19.4 as described in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, further comprising a conductive auxiliary agent (¶[0148], see vapor-grown carbon fiber, VGCF).
Regarding claim 8, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, wherein the active material is not continuously covered with a Li ion conductive resin, in this case the active material is not intentionally covered by a Li ion conductive resin and there are several components within the anode mixture that are not Li ion conductive resins including conductive carbon VGCF and the binder PVdF (¶[0148]) which would inherently come into contact with the active material within the mixture, preventing continuous coverage.
Regarding claim 9, Otaki discloses an electrode sheet for an all-solid state secondary battery, comprising a layer formed of the electrode composition according to claim 1, on a surface of a collector (¶[0155]).
Regarding claim 10, Otaki discloses an all-solid state secondary battery comprising (¶[0147]), in the following order (see Fig. 1):
a positive electrode active material layer (i.e. cathode, layer 2);
a solid electrolyte layer (layer 1); and
a negative electrode active material layer (i.e. anode, layer 3),
wherein at least one layer of the positive electrode active material layer or the negative electrode active material layer is formed of the electrode composition according to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otaki et. al. (US20190013541 as cited in the IDS dated 11/23/22) in view of Ueda (US US20100068628A1).
Regarding claim 4, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, but does not disclose a specific material wherein the constitutional component has a polar group containing active hydrogen, or a heterocyclic group.
However Otaki does teach that the binder may be selected from a list including wherein the binder contains a constitutional component containing a heterocyclic group, including polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (¶[0060]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize choosing a constitutional component containing a heterocyclic group would provide an effective electrode according to the invention of Otaki.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the constitutional component containing a heterocyclic group of Otaki to provide an effective electrode.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otaki et. al. (US20190013541 as cited in the IDS dated 11/23/22) in view of Ueda (US US20100068628A1) further in view of Mimura et. al. (US20180277892 as cited in the IDS dated 11/23/22).
Regarding claim 5, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, and further teaches the polymer binder may be an acrylic resin (¶[0060]), but does not disclose wherein the constitutional component has a structure represented by Formula (M1) or Formula (M2),
PNG
media_image1.png
607
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mimura, related to solid electrolytes, teaches an acrylic resin binder containing hydroxylethyl acrylate and acrylic acid as monomer units satisfying formula M2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized substituting the binder of Mimura for the binder of Otaki would create a functioning material as suggested by Otaki.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the binder of Mimura in place of the binder of Otaki to create a functioning material.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 13, Otaki discloses an electrode composition according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the polymer that forms the polymer binder further comprises a constitutional component derived from a (meth)acrylic monomer or vinyl monomer having an SP value of less than 19.0 MPa1/2.
Mimura, related to solid electrolytes, teaches an acrylic resin binder containing dodecyl methacrylate as a monomer unit(¶[0335]) and the SP value is 18.5 according to Table 1 of the instant specification(see LMA).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized including the binder component of Mimura in the binder of Otaki would create a functioning acrylic resin based material as suggested by Otaki.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the binder of Mimura in place of the binder of Otaki to create a functioning material.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights