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 10/10/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 15 is/are amended; claim(s) 4-5 remain withdrawn; and claim(s) 3 has/have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 6-15 are pending review in this Office action. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, 35 U.S.C. 103, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the Office action mailed 07/31/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 3 of the final rejection mailed 10/10/2025 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to cancel claim 3 and amend claim 1 with limitations from Example 3 and [0034] of the instant specification.
Specifically, Examiner notes that subject matter which was deemed allowable (see claim 3 of the claims filed 09/15/2022) was directed towards the electrode of claim 1 wherein R1, R2, and R3 are each independently -CH2COOX where X is Na/K/Rb/Cs, and R’, R2’, and R3’ are each independently -CH2COOY where Y is Li. This would require a total degree of substitution (DS) of exactly 3 (the theoretical maximum for a cellulose derivative polymer), with exactly half of the carboxymethyl groups being substituted with Li, and exactly half being substituted with Na/K/Rb/Cs, and further requiring the substituents of each cellulose monomer unit to be segregated by substituted monovalent metal, i.e., a cellulose monomer unit with -CH2COOX where X is Na/K/Rb/Cs cannot have -CH2COOY where Y is Li attached anywhere on the same unit.
It was noted (see nonfinal rejection mailed 07/31/2025) that the closest prior art failed to teach a DS above 1.5 or the exact ratio of Li to Na/K/Rb/Cs substitution or segregation by monomer unit.
Applicant has amended the claims to cancel claim 3 and amend claim 1 with limitations from Example 3 and [0034] of the instant specification, which broaden recitation of the polymer of Formula 1 to include a polymer wherein at least one of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is -CH2COOX where X is rubidium (Rb) or cesium (Cs), and at least one other of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is -CH2COOY where Y is lithium. This amendment resolves the issues of degree of substitution and specificity of substitution which were rejected under 112(a). Applicant’s amendment has also broadened the range of claimed compounds such that the compound is no longer deemed allowable over the prior art for the reasons discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US20210313617A1), Hochgatterer et al. (US20100239915A1), and Tang et al. (CN113088134A see attached machine translation)
Regarding claims 1, 6, Yushin discloses an electrode (“anode”) comprising a binder formed of a cellulose derivative composition (claim 1) being carboxymethyl cellulose ([0104]) (claim 6). Yushin further specifies the selection of Li-CMC, which is recognized as being represented in Formula 1 of claim 1 where at least one of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is - CH2COOY where Y is lithium as claimed.
While Yushin does not appear necessarily limited to Li-CMC or the additional named species of Na-CMC and K-CMC, and discloses a suitability of using mixes of multiple CMC salts ([0106]), Yushin fails to explicitly disclose the polymer of claim 1 where at least one of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is -CH2COOX where X is rubidium (Rb) or cesium (Cs).
Hochgatterer is similarly directed to an electrode comprising a binder formed of a cellulose derivative composition, e.g., a polysaccharide (Hochgatterer, abstract) being an alkali metal-substituted carboxymethylcellulose ([0043-0045]) represented in Formula 1 where at least one of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is -CH2COOX where X is Li, Na, or K ([0043-0045]). Hochgetterer further teaches Rb and Cs as substitutable equivalents to Li, Na, or K to form the alkali metal salts in the cellulose derivative and allow solubility of the cellulose derivative in water ([0040-0043]); similarly, Yushin discusses use of the ion-substituted CMC material in the binder for its water-soluble property ([0106]). In other words, salt-substituted carboxymethyl groups -CH2COOLi and -CH2COOX where X is Rb and Cs are recognized as equivalents for the same purpose of improving the cellulose derivative’s solubility.
Furthermore, Tang, directed to a cellulose-derivative coating material used to improve a lithium battery separator ([n0003]), teaches doping the cellulose material with both lithium ions and rubidium ions to improve the lithium-ion conductivity by forming large-pore ion channels with the rubidium ions ([n0020-n0022], [n0026-n0029]); while Tang does not teach this lithium/rubidium modified cellulose material for use as a binder, a skilled artisan would nonetheless consider Tang’s teaching as being analogously directed to a cellulose derivative composition.
Consequently, in seeking to improve the lithium-ion conductivity of Yushin’s binder cellulose-derivative composition, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the use of both -CH2COOLi and -CH2COOX where X is Rb as taught by Tang and Hochgatterer. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as both types of ion-substituted carboxymethyl groups are recognized as equivalents for the same purpose of improving binder solubility by Hochgatterer (MPEP 2144.06 I).
This combination would result in Yushin’s cellulose derivate composition being a polymer having repeating units represented by in Formula 1 where at least one of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is -CH2COOX where X is rubidium (Rb) and at least one other of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is - CH2COOY where Y is lithium (Li).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the electrode comprises an electrode active material including graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon (Yushin [0182]) or silicon-carbon composite (“graphite(s) or soft carbon(s) with Si”, [0184])
Regarding claim 9, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 7. Yushin’s binder weight is balanced between at least 0.5 wt% of the electrode to provide sufficient mechanical robustness and less than 15% to improve volumetric capacity, conductivity, and material costs (Yushin [0116]). While Yushin does not explicitly indicate a weight ratio of the electrode active material and the binder solution is 90:10 to about 99:1, Yushin contacts the electrode active material with an aqueous solution of a binder during electrode fabrication ([0089]) which would necessitate the selection of at least some amount of binder solution. Given the similar weight ranges relative to the electrode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized at least a portion of the claimed range of electrode active material and the binder solution of 90:10 to about 99:1 performing the above optimization of modified Yushin’s binder weight within a range of 0.5 wt% 15% (MPEP 2144.05 II), with a reasonable expectation of success as Yushin requires at least some amount of binder solution relative to the electrode active material weight in order to form the electrode.
Regarding claims 10, 11, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein an experimental example of the binder formed of the cellulose derivative composition comprises a mixture of CMC as the cellulose derivative composition and elastic SBR nanoparticles (Yushin [0173], [0104]), this mixture being recognized as an emulsion (claim 10).
In the mixture, a blend of SBR is used to provide elasticity while CMC is used for water solubility, where a content of the elastic material (i.e., SBR) is maintained within between 5-70 wt % of the binder ([0106]). Consequently, in seeking to balance the elasticity and water solubility of modified Yushin’s binder, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to optimize a weight ratio between the cellulose derivative composition and the SBR emulsion within a range of 30:70 (70 wt% SBR) to 95:5 (5 wt% SBR), encompassing the claimed range between 60:40 to about 90:10 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Yushin’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US20210313617A1), Hochgatterer et al. (US20100239915A1), and Tang et al. (CN113088134A) as applied to claim 7, further as evidenced by Sawa et al. (US20080241646A1 cited in Office action filed 07/31/2025).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 7, wherein the electrode active material comprises graphite (Yushin [0054]); while Yushin does not explicitly indicate a conductivity of the active material, graphite inherently comprises a conductivity of about 349 S/cm (evidenced by Sawa pp. 3 Table 2), this falling within the claimed range of 2 S/cm
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US20210313617A1), Hochgatterer et al. (US20100239915A1), and Tang et al. (CN113088134A) as applied to claim 7, further as evidenced by Chung et al. US20210159486A1 (cited in the IDS filed 09/15/2022)
Regarding claim 12, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1. Yushin fails to explicitly specify microgel phase formation when the compound is dissolved in 1 wt% de-ionized water, but does note that the CMC of the cellulose derivative composition is substituted with an alkali metal ion to allow water solubility of the material (Yushin [0104], [0106]).
Chung, similarly directed to a binder formed of a cellulose-derivative composition (Chung [0027-0028]) evidences that metal ion substitution in a CMC binder material improves solubility ([0030]), inhibiting microgel phase formation resulting from insufficient CMC dissolution ([0031]).
As such, when modified Yushin’s cellulose derivative composition comprising the compound represented by Formula 1 is dissolved in 1 wt% (in de-ionized water), the number of microgel phases is inherently reduced compared to when the compound represented by Formula 1 is not included (i.e., CMC without any metal ion substitution) as evidenced by Chung.
Claim(s) 2, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US20210313617A1), Hochgatterer et al. (US20100239915A1), and Tang et al. (CN113088134A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baek et al. (KR20150129267A cited in IDS filed 09/25/2025; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yushin discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode including a binder formed of the cellulose derivative composition of claim 1; while Yushin suggests application of various aspects of the battery to a solid-state battery (Yushin [0040]), Yushin fails to disclose an all-solid-state secondary battery specifically including the binder of claim 1.
Baek is directed to a battery similarly comprising an electrode comprising a polymer salt suitably embodied as a salt of CMC (Baek [0007]), where in Formula 1, at least one of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' is -CH2COOX and -CH2COOY (“carboxylate”) where X and Y are substituted with a cation ([0016]); the substituted CMC is used to improve the bonding force in the electrode ([0025]), and is thus broadly and reasonably interpreted as a binder. Baek further discloses selection of an inorganic solid electrolyte (i.e., an all-solid-state electrolyte), where selection of a solid electrolyte improves the battery safety ([0057-0058]).
As such, in seeking to improve the battery safety, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to form an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising an electrode including modified Yushin’s binder formed of the cellulose derivative composition of claim 1 as taught by Baek. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Baek teaches a suitability of forming an all-solid-state secondary battery with a similar cellulose-derivative binder, and because Yushin suggests the application of aspects of the battery (e.g., the electrode) in a solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding claim 13, modified Yushin discloses the all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 2, wherein the electrode comprises an electrode active material. While Yushin does not explicitly comment on ion transfer within the electrode as being done through contact between the electrode active materials and through the ion-conductive binder, modified Yushin’s binder comprises at least some amount of CMC where in Formula 1 (see claim 1), at least one of R1, R1', R2, R2', R3, and R3' within the polymer is- CH2COOY where Y is lithium.
Baek evidences that lithium salts of CMC improve the mobility of lithium ions in the electrode (Baek [0021], [0016]); as such, modified Yushin’s binder comprising carboxymethyl groups substituted with lithium salt is recognized as inherently allowing ion transfer within the electrode to be achieved through the ion-conductive binder in addition to contact between the electrode active materials.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yushin discloses the all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 2; Yushin fails to disclose the content of a liquid or solid electrolyte in the electrode when used in an all-solid-state battery. Baek, relied upon to teach forming an all-solid-state battery using modified Yushin’s electrode (see discussion of claim 2), further teaches that the all-solid-state battery is manufactured by stacking a positive electrode, a solid electrolyte, and a negative electrode before storing the stack in a battery can (Baek [0062]). Compared to to other assembly methods, no liquid electrolyte is impregnated into the electrodes, and Baek does not teach considerations of mixing solid electrolyte into the electrodes ([0062]).
As a skilled artisan would necessarily need at least some method of assembling modified Yushin’s all-solid-state battery, with Baek’s method as discussed above being a predictable solution, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to form the all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 2 wherein modified Yushin’s electrode does not contain a liquid or solid electrolyte as taught in Baek’s method of assembly.
Furthermore, Yushin discloses that the electrode does not necessarily require a conductive material (Yushin [0043]); an experimental example of an electrode (“anode”) formed with CMC and SBR as a binder is formed with no conductive additives ([0176]) such that it would similarly be obvious to form the all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 2, wherein the electrode further does not contain a conductive material.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US20210313617A1), Hochgatterer et al. (US20100239915A1), Tang et al. (CN113088134A) and Baek et al. (KR20150129267A) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Maeyama et al. (US20200358080A1 cited in Office action filed 07/31/2025)
Regarding claim 15, modified Yushin discloses the all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 2. While Yushin discloses considerations of decreasing electrode porosity through pressure-rolling electrodes to improve the energy density, electrical conductivity, and particle cohesion ([0099-0100]), Yushin fails to specify a pore density in the electrode for an all-solid-state battery as being 15% or less; Baek similarly fails to teach a desired pore density in the electrode.
Maeyama, in similar field of endeavor related to an all-solid-state battery (“solid battery”, Maeyama abstract), teaches a desirability that the porosity (i.e., pore density) of the negative electrode be within 15 vol% or less to minimize the occurrence of air gaps which interfere with paths for ion transfer in the electrode and reduce the overall energy density ([0074-0076]).
As such, in seeking to minimize the negative effects on ion transfer and energy density in modified Yushin’s all-solid-state secondary battery, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to produce modified Yushin’s all-solid-state secondary battery of claim 2 with a pore density of 15 vol% or less as taught by Maeyama. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yushin envisions similar considerations of decreasing electrode porosity for the purposes of electrode energy density and electrical conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 6-15 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 under Chung et al. US20210159486A1, Wikipedia “Carboxymethyl cellulose”, Sawa et al. US20080241646A1, Koo et al. US20150030923A1, Qiu et al. “Enhanced electrochemical properties of LiFePO4 (LFP) cathode using the carboxymethyl cellulose lithium (CMC-Li) as novel binder in lithium-ion battery”, and Maeyama et al. US20200358080A1 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.
Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed 10/10/2025.
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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 G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/10/2026
Prosecution Insights