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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5, in the reply filed 7/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sonobe et al. (USPN 9,711,785).
In Col. 2, Lines 9-13, Sonobe et al. discloses a negative electrode slurry composition comprising a composition of a styrene-butadiene copolymer binder a having a glass transition temperature (measured in dynamic viscoelasticity) with a single peak at -30°C to 60°C, exemplified by 61.9 parts of an aromatic vinyl compound (styrene), 33.3 parts of a conjugated diene compound (1,3-butadiene) and 3.8 parts of an unsaturated carboxylic acid (itaconic acid), in a liquid medium (water dispersion) (See Example 1, Col. 21, Line 55 to Col., Line 9); wherein the number average particle size of the obtained copolymer is preferably 50 to 500 nm (Col. 5, lines 13-18).
Sonobe et al. further discloses that the binder comprising this composition has a glass transition temperature with a single peak at 10°C (Col. 22, Lines 12-14).
While Sonobe et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose the claimed relationship between tanꟘ(100°C)/tanꟘ(Tp), Sonobe et al. discloses a binder with an equivalent composition to that of the instant invention, and with an equivalent glass transition temperature (single peak at 10°C), and thus it is reasonable that the binder composition of Sonobe et al. would satisfy the claimed relationship, as the composition of Sonobe et al. is essentially the same as the claimed composition. The USPTO does not have at its disposal the tools or facilities deemed necessary to make physical determinations of the sort, and in any event, an otherwise old composition is not patentable regardless of any new or unexpected properties. In re Fitzgerald et al , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112 - § 2112.02.
Even if assuming that the prior art references do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102, it would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to arrive at the same inventive composition because the disclosure of the inventive subject matter appears within the generic disclosure of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-7.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/KELECHI C EGWIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
KCE
Prosecution Insights