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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 11/6/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-22 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the §112(b) rejection to claims 2, 4-20, is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/6/2025, with respect to the objection of the abstract and the rejection of claim 1 under §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the abstract has been withdrawn, and the rejection of claim 1 under §112(b) has been withdrawn. The rejection of the dependent claims under §112(b) due to their dependance on claim 1 has also been withdrawn. The rejection of claim 3 still stands.
Applicant's other arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the §112(b) rejection of claim 3. The applicant argues on page 9 and the top of page 10 that the term “around” is clearly defined in the specification. The office disagrees with this assertion. The term “around” is a very broad term and can be used multiple ways such as a shell being around a core or a mixture of copolymers being in proximity to each other. Therefore, the use of such language in a precisely worded claim is indefinite.
Regarding the §103 rejections 1-3, 5-7 and 9-20. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 1. The applicant appears to have mischaracterized SEO [0077] where “the heat resistance layer 30 may further include a non-cross-linkable binder in addition to the acryl-based copolymer. The non-cross-linkable binder may be,” “acrylonitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymer,” which reads over copolymer (B); wherein the styrene monomeric component reads over aromatic vinyl monomer (b-1) and the butadiene monomeric component reads over conjugated diene (b-2) which are units of the same copolymer. The applicant’s arguments on pages 14 and 15 depend on this erroneous premise so are also not persuasive.
In response to the applicants’ argument that that the references reasons to combine are allegedly different than the applicant’s argued reason to combine is irrelevant. SEO [0079] “heat resistance layer may be increased; stability of the separator and impregnation properties of an electrolyte solution may be improved” is enough motivation for a person of ordinary skill to combine the copolymers in the application of components for a separator in a primary battery.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the term “around” is indefinite because it can mean to surround each particle separately, or to be in proximity to. For examination purposes the term will be interpreted to mean “in proximity to”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170012282 A1, KONDO et al. provided in the IDS dated 3/14/2023 in view of US 20170338461 A1, SEO et al. provided in the IDS dated 10/6/2022.
Regarding claim 1. KONDO [title] discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery, the negative electrode comprising
a current collector [0023];
a first active material layer on the current collector [0023]; and
a second active material layer on the first active material layer [0023], wherein at least one of the first active material layer or the second active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material [0023] which the reference calls a nano silicon, and
a binder [0236],
KONDO does not disclose the binder comprises
a copolymer (A) and
a copolymer (B), and wherein
the copolymer (A) comprises
a unit (a-1) derived from a (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer and
a unit (a-2) derived from a (meth)acrylonitrile monomer, and
the copolymer (B) comprises
a unit (b-1) derived from an aromatic vinyl-based monomer and
a unit (b-2) derived from an ethylenically unsaturated monomer that is at least one of
an unsaturated carboxylic acid alkyl ester monomer,
a (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer,
an unsaturated carboxylic acid amide monomer, or
a conjugated diene monomer.
SEO [title] discloses a Separator for Rechargeable Battery where it is disclosed that the binder [0036] is in a heat-resistant layer 30 that is in contact with the electrode active material layer and has improved adherence [0043] that comprises
a copolymer (A) [0077] which the reference calls an “acryl-based copolymer” and
a copolymer (B) [0077] which the reference calls a “polyethylene-vinylacetate copolymer”, and wherein
the copolymer (A) comprises
a unit (a-1) derived from a (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer [0074] and
a unit (a-2) which the reference calls the cyano group-containing unit, derived from a (meth)acrylonitrile monomer [0051], and
the copolymer (B) comprises
a unit (b-1) derived from an aromatic vinyl-based monomer [0077] acrylonitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymer and
a unit (b-2) derived from an ethylenically unsaturated monomer that is a (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer [0074],
SEO [0073-0079] also discloses “the heat resistance layer 30 may further include a cross-linkable binder having a cross-linking structure in addition to the acryl-based copolymer” and that “the non-cross-linkable has adherence between the porous substrate 20 and the heat resistance layer 30 may be increased, stability of the separator 10 and impregnation properties of an electrolyte solution may be improved, and thus, high-rate charge and discharge characteristics of a battery may be improved.”
KONDO modified by SEO does not disclose that in the binder, a weight ratio of copolymer (A) and copolymer (B) (A:B) is about 30:70 to about 70:30. However the examiner would like to point out SEO [0012] discloses “the heat resistance layer, the acryl-based copolymer may be included in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 30 wt %.” Which is obvious over the claimed range.
Nonetheless, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality to the invention, the Office finds a slightly differing amount of each of those units would be considered to be nothing more than the product of routine experimentation in attempting to arrive at a polymer having preferred heat-resistant properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the two copolymers (A and B) made up of the units (a-1, a-2, b-1, and b-2) disclosed by SEO in the electrode disclosed by KONDO in order to improve the heat resistance of the binder in the negative electrode thereby achieving high-rate charge and discharge characteristics.
Regarding claims 2 and 3. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein SEO [0160] discloses the copolymer (A) and the copolymer (B) are physically mixed with each other in the binder in order to increase thermal resistance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have mixed the copolymers together in order to improve the thermal resistance. When the copolymers are mixed together they must also be in proximity to each other satisfying the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the copolymer (A) comprises about 30 wt% to about 70 wt% of the unit (a-1) derived from the (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer [0053] and about 30 wt% to about 70 wt% of the unit (a-2) derived from (meth)acrylonitrile [0051] (in the cyano group-containing unit) based on 100 wt% of the copolymer (A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have mixed the copolymers together in order to improve the thermal resistance.
Regarding claim 6. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein
the copolymer (A) [0009] further comprises
a unit (a-3) derived from a monomer copolymerizable with the (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer [0009], and
the monomer [0037] is copolymerizable with the (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer comprises
an amide group-containing monomer [0037], which the reference calls a filler,
SEO further discloses that the filler which is on the surface of the separator that comes into contact with the binder for the electrode [0038] improves heat resistance, durability, and stability.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used this combination of copolymers at the interface of the separator, binders and electrode in order to improve heat resistance, durability, and stability.
Regarding claim 7. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 6.
KONDO modified by SEO does not disclose the unit (a-3) derived from the monomer copolymerizable with the (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer and/or the (meth)acrylonitrile monomer is greater than about 0 wt% and less than or equal to about 20 wt% based on 100 wt% of the copolymer.
SEO discloses [0009] In the acryl-based copolymer, the unit derived from (meth)acrylate or (meth)acrylic acid may be included in an amount of about 10 mol % to about 70 mol %.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the claimed ranges in the instant application.
Regarding claim 9. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the unit (b-2) [0072] the acryl-based copolymer derived from the ethylenically unsaturated monomer is in an amount of greater than or equal to about 1 wt% to 30 wt% based on 100 wt% of the copolymer (B).
Regarding claim 10. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1,
KONDO [0024] discloses wherein one of the first active material layer or the second active material layer comprises the silicon-based active material and the binder [0236], and the other of the first active material layer or the second active material layer comprises a carbon-based active material [0236] in the form of carbon powder.
Regarding claim 11. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein
KONDO [0024] discloses the first active material layer comprises
the silicon-based active material [0024],
the binder [0236], and
a first carbon-based active material [0236], and
the second active material layer comprises
a second carbon-based active material [0027] that contains graphite.
Regarding claim 12. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein KONDO discloses the first active material layer [0027] and the second active material layer [0027] each comprise
the silicon-based active material [0027] as a nano material,
the binder [0236], and
a carbon-based active material [0236], and
[0351] content of silicon in the first active material layer is about 2 to 25 times that of silicon in the second active material layer.
Regarding claim 13. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein
KONDO discloses the first active material layer [0027] and the second active material layer [0027] each comprise
the silicon-based active material [0027],
the binder [0236], and
a carbon-based active material [0236], and
KONDO does not specifically discloses the negative electrode has a concentration gradient in which content of silicon increases from the second active material layer to the first active material layer.
KONDO [0351] discloses pressing the two layers with a rolling machine. It is the offices position that when the layers are pressed together a concentration gradient will form and be present on at least a nano, or even a micrometer scale.
Regarding claim 14. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein KONDO discloses
the silicon-based active material comprises [0027]
[0099] a silicon-carbon composite comprising silicon particles and
[0099] a first carbon-based material.
Regarding claim 15. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 14, wherein KONDO [0232] discloses the first carbon-based material comprises artificial graphite, natural graphite, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 16. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein KONDO discloses
the silicon-based active material comprises
a silicon-carbon composite comprising [0099]:
a core [0099] in which silicon particles (aggregated) and
a second carbon-based material are mixed [0099]; and
a third carbon-based material is around the core [0232] in the form of either a low-crystallinity graphite, a high-crystallinity graphite, flake-like graphite, spheroidal graphite, block-like graphite, earthy graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon etc.
Regarding claim 17. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 16, wherein KONDO [0232] discloses
the second carbon-based material is crystalline carbon comprising
artificial graphite, natural graphite, or a combination thereof, and
the third carbon-based material is amorphous carbon comprising
pitch carbon, soft carbon, hard carbon, a mesophase pitch carbonized product, calcined coke, a carbon fiber, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the KONDO [0238] discloses
first active material layer or the second active material layer comprising
the silicon-based active material and
the binder comprises about 0.5 wt % to 50 wt % of the binder based on 100 wt% of the first active material layer.
Regarding claim 19. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein KONDO [0101] discloses the first active material layer or the second active material layer comprising the silicon-based active material and the binder [0236] further comprises a carbon-based active material [0101].
Regarding claim 20. KONDO [0017] discloses a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the negative electrode for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 disclosed by KONDO modified by SEO where,
a positive electrode [0250],
a separator [0250] between the negative electrode and
the positive electrode, and
an electrolyte [0250].
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170012282 A1, KONDO et al. provided in the IDS dated 3/14/2023 in view of US 20170338461 A1, SEO et al. provided in the IDS dated 10/6/2022 as evidenced by Core-Shell Structure of Polyacrylate-Based Binder Enhancing the Wet-Adhesion Strength and the Kinetics of Lithium-Ion Diffusion by SEONG-WOOK HEO et al. published by Science Direct.
Regarding claims 21 and 22. KONDO modified by SEO disclose the negative electrode of claim 1.
SEO [0032] discloses a separator (10) for a rechargeable batter that includes a heat-resistant layer (30). The separator (10) includes an acryl-based copolymer which comprises repeat units derived from (meth)acrylic acid (a-1) and (meth)acrylonitrile (a-2) in chemical formula 11 [0061-0062]. A skilled artisan would appreciate that the copolymer of chemical formula 11 is hydrophilic as it comprises nonionic polar repeat units and ionic alkali metal salt groups.
SEO [0077] further discloses the heat-resistant layer (30), which is part of the separator (10), may comprise acronitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymer, which reads over applicant’s polymer (B). A skilled artisan would appreciate that the acronitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymer is largely hydrophobic as it comprises styrenic and olefinic repeat units.
SEO [0087] discloses the separator composition may be in an aqueous (polar) solution.
SEO is silent with respect to core-shell assemblies in the disclosed composition. However, the assembly of core-shell latex particles in a polar solutions, wherein acrylic acid derived copolymers form the shell and styrene-butadiene derived copolymers form the core, is known in the art.
HEO [title] discloses A Core-Shell Structure of Polyacrylate-Based Binder Enhancing the Wet-Adhesion Strength and the Kinetics of Lithium-Ion Diffusion,
HEO discloses in the annotated figure (d) depicted below that a hydrophobic polymer (styrenic) and a hydrophilic polymer (methacrylic) will form a shell-core particle due to their respective affinity toward a polar solution. A skilled artisan would recognize that a polar solvent would result in the hydrophobic component forming the core of the particle, while the hydrophilic copolymer would form the shell, as evidenced by the annotated figure depicted below.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a copolymer (A) that is water-soluble (i.e. hydrophilic) and a copolymer (B) that is water-insoluble (i.e. hydrophobic) would assemble in a core shell structure, in the polar solvent disclosed by SEO.
PNG
media_image1.png
297
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5804357 A, YAMANOUCHI et al.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727