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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 5th, 2025, was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on July 29th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 23rd, 2025, was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on July 29th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 29th, 2025, was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on July 29th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments receive in the Remarks on November 17th, 2025:
Claims 1-12 are pending, claim 1 has been amended, and claims 4-12 are withdrawn due to previous restriction requirement.
Claim 1 has been amended to remove “constituent ratios” and the “()” around “molar ratios”.
Status of Pending Objections and Rejections from the Office Action of July 29th, 2025
The previous claim objection regarding claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on November 17th, 2026.
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks on November 17th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed November 17th, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Adachi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Nakatani et al, US 20160333235 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Sonobe et al, WO 2019131210 A1 (as cited in IDS and referencing US 20210066720 A1 for citation).
Nakatani teaches a block copolymer with excellent viscous adhesion and low viscosity property [Nakatani, 0034]. The block copolymer comprises component A including a polymer block Ar mainly comprising a vinyl aromatic monomer unit and a polymer block D mainly comprising a conjugate diene monomer unit and component B including the polymer block Ar and the polymer block D [Nakatani, 0040], wherein the hydrogenation ratio of the conjugated diene monomer unit in component A and component B is 10 to 80% by mol to a total amount of the conjugated diene monomer units in component A and component B [Nakatani,0041].
Sonobe teaches a binder composition for a secondary battery, that is preferable in a total proportion in which a conjugated diene monomer units and linear alkylene structural unit, with a carbon number of 4 or more are included in the polymer, including a aromatic vinyl monomer unit [Sonobe, 0012]. Further, the polymer comprises a Mooney viscosity (ML1+4, 100 °C) of preferably 50 or more and preferably 200 or less [Sonobe, 0086].
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al, US 20160333235 A1 (as cited in the IDS) and Sonobe et al, WO 2019131210 A1 (as cited in IDS and referencing US 20210066720 A1 for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakatani teaches a copolymer, comprises component A and component B, wherein component A, corresponding to polymer A of the claim, includes a polymer block Ar mainly comprising a vinyl aromatic monomer unit and a polymer block D mainly comprising a conjugate diene monomer unit [Nakatani, 0040], wherein Table 1 of Nakatani depicts production examples 1-11 that include polymers composed of an aromatic vinyl monomers having aromatic vinyl units, including styrene, as taught by the instant specification [instant specification, 0030], and conjugated diene monomer having conjugated diene units, including 1,3-butadiene, as taught by the instant specification [instant specification, 0031] wherein the hydrogenation ratio of the conjugated diene monomer unit in component A and component B is 10 to 80% by mol to a total amount of the conjugated diene monomer units in component A and component B [Nakatani,0041], corresponding to an α value of between 0.1 to 0.8, wherein according to the instant specification, α, represented by the equation (i), corresponds to the hydrogenation ratio of the conjugated diene-based copolymer [instant specification, 0064]. However, Nakatani is silent to teach on the Mooney viscosity (ML1+4, 100 °C) of 10 to 100, or the ratio of p, q, e, s as shown in the expression of (i).
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Sonobe teaches a binder composition for a secondary battery [Sonobe, 0023], including a polymer with a nitrile group-containing monomer unit, an aromatic vinyl monomer unit, a hydrophilic group-containing monomer unit a conjugated diene monomer unit and a linear alkylene structural unit having a carbon number of 4 or more [Sonobe, 0028], wherein the Mooney viscosity (ML1+4, 100 °C) of the polymer is preferably 50 or more and preferably 200 or less [Sonobe, 0086].
Sonobe and Nakatani are considered analogous arts in the art of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nakatani to include the Moony viscosity as taught by Sonobe because such modification would result in a binder composition with an improved solid dispersity and increased coat-ability [Sonobe, 0086].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
While modified Nakatani does not explicitly discloses the ratio of p, q, e, s as shown in the expression of (i), Nakatani discloses the hydrogenation ratio of the conjugated diene monomer unit in component A and component B is 10 to 80% by mol to a total amount of the conjugated diene monomer units in component A and component B [Nakatani,0041], such as to obtain adhesive composition excellent in the retentivity [Nakatani, 0069], corresponding to an α value of between 0.1 to 0.8, wherein according to the instant specification, α, represented by the equation (i), corresponds to the hydrogenation ratio of the conjugated diene-based copolymer [instant specification, 0064] and Sonobe teaches linear alkylene structural units having a carbon number of 4 or more, that is represented by the general formula CnH2n, wherein n is an integer of 4 or more. The inclusion of the linear alkylene structural units can inhibit the polymer from readily swelling during charging/discharging and improved the adherence between a current collector and active material as well as enhance the cycle characteristics of the battery [Sonobe, 0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the binder composition to include the ratio of p, q, e, s as shown in the expression of (i) to achieve the most desirable and efficient properties as to obtain adhesive composition excellent in the retentivity [Nakatani, 0069] and inhibit the polymer from readily swelling during charging/discharging and improved the adherence between a current collector and active material as well as enhance the cycle characteristics of the battery [Sonobe, 0061].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Nakatani teaches the binder for an all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 1, wherein component A, corresponding to polymer A of the claim, includes a polymer block Ar mainly comprising a vinyl aromatic monomer unit [Nakatani, 0040], and the content of the vinyl aromatic monomer unit in the block copolymer is preferably 5% by mass or higher and lower than 35% by mass [Nakatani, 0062], and examples of the vinyl aromatic monomer are not limited but include styrene, α-methylstyrene, p-methylstyrene, divinylbenzene, 1,1-diphenylethylene, N,N-dimethyl-p-aminoethylstyrene and N,N-diethyl-p-aminoethylstyrene, wherein styrene is preferred [Nakatani, 0080].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Nakatani teaches the binder for an all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the block copolymer composition may contain so-called modified polymers in which polar group-containing function groups containing atoms selected from nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur and tin are bound to the block copolymer [Nakatani, 0105].
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 LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722