BINDER, NEGATIVE-ELECTRODE SLURRY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE, AND LITHIUM-ION BATTERY
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
In response to communication filed on 3/11/2026:
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous double patenting rejections have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “In response thereto, Applicant has submitted a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321, so as to overcome the double patenting rejection. The terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 executed by the authorized attorney or agent of record is filed herewith solely to advance prosecution of the application, without conceding that the double patenting rejection is properly based. Therefore, reconsideration and withdrawal of the double patenting rejection are most earnestly solicited.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. No terminal disclaimer has been filed. Please file terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/010,465 in view of Huang et al. (CN 108832129 A) and Ueda (JP 2006/210208A).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 8 of the instant application and claim 1 of 18/010,465, they have substantially the same subject matter because ‘465 identically claims the common limitations of:
A binder, characterized by that the binder comprises a lithiated block polymer, and the lithiated block polymer is a lithiated product of a block polymer having a structure represented by B-C-B-A, wherein A represents a polymer block A, B represents a polymer block B, and C represents a polymer block C;
the polymer block A is formed by polymerizing alkenyl formic acid monomers;
the polymer block B is formed by polymerizing aromatic vinyl monomers;
the polymer block C is formed by polymerizing acrylate monomers,
wherein in the block polymer,
a degree of polymerization of the polymer block A is 10 to 50;
a degree of polymerization of the polymer block B is 200 to 500;
a degree of polymerization of the polymer block C is 400-1000.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine claims 1 and 8 into a singular claim considering the dependency of claim 8 onto claim 1 and the singular embodiments comprising the claim limitations of claim 1 and 8 in [0012] and [0013] of the instant specification of ‘989.
‘989 also claims a second block polymer, and the second block polymer is a lithiated triblock polymer, and the triblock polymer has a structure shown as E-F-E, wherein E represents a polymer block E, and F represents a polymer block F; the polymer block E is polymerized from an alkenyl formic acid monomer; the polymer block F is polymerized from an acrylate monomer which ‘465 fails to claim.
However Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] that comprises a second block polymer wherein the second block polymer is a lithiated triblock polymer by acrylic acid/ esters/acrylic acid block type copolymer in [0010], and the triblock polymer has a structure shown as E-F-E by acrylic acid/esters/acrylic acid in [0010] and [0011], wherein E represents a polymer block E by acrylic acid or AA in [0010] and [0011], and F represents a polymer block F by ester or more specifically acrylate monomeric units or MA in [0010] and [0011] and exemplified in [0054];
Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] for a battery in [0005] to support cohesive forces and mechanical strength in [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the binders of ‘989 and Huang et al. because they are taught to be useful for the same purpose of adhesion and battery purpose in [0005] and [0019] of Huang et al. and [0007] of the instant specification of ‘989. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
Ueda teaches that the lithiating a binder in ([0054]; [0012]; [0013]) to increase adhesion in the negative electrode and improves cycle characteristics (Ueda [0054])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang et al. and lithiate the binder of Huang et al. such as in Ueda. Doing so increases adhesion in the negative electrode and improves cycle characteristics (Ueda [0054]).
Regarding claim 2 of the instant application and claim 2 of ‘465, they claim substantially the same subject matter of:
The binder characterized by that a structure of the alkenyl formic acid monomer is
PNG
media_image1.png
66
109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein R11 and R12 are independently hydrogen or C1-4 alkyl;
and/or a structure of the aromatic vinyl monomer is
PNG
media_image2.png
92
161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
15
134
media_image3.png
Greyscale
R26 are independently hydrogen or C1-4 alkyl;
and/or a structure of the acrylate monomer is
PNG
media_image4.png
56
118
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R31 is a linear or branched Cl-10 alkyl.
‘989 also claims and/or in the triblock polymer, the alkenyl formic acid monomer is
PNG
media_image5.png
32
59
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
35
30
media_image6.png
Greyscale
R51 and R52 are independently hydrogen or a C1~4 alkyl group;
and/or in the triblock polymer, the acrylate monomer is
PNG
media_image7.png
45
90
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R61 is a C1-4 alkyl group which ‘465 fails to claim.
However, Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] that comprises a second block polymer wherein the second block polymer is a lithiated triblock polymer by acrylic acid/ esters/acrylic acid block type copolymer in [0010], and the triblock polymer has a structure shown as E-F-E by acrylic acid/esters/acrylic acid in [0010] and [0011].
Huang et al. teaches in the triblock polymer, the alkenyl formic acid monomer is
PNG
media_image5.png
32
59
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
35
30
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, by the acrylic acid in [0010] and [0011] that inherently has this structure wherein R51 and R52 are independently hydrogen.
Huang et al. teaches in the triblock polymer the acrylate monomer is
PNG
media_image7.png
45
90
media_image7.png
Greyscale
by the acrylate monomeric units in [0010] and [0011] and example of MA in [0054] which is reasonably understood to mean methyl acrylate which inherently has this structure wherein R61 is a C1 alkyl by the M or methyl of MA in [0054].
Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] for a battery in [0005] to support cohesive forces and mechanical strength in [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the binders of ‘989 and Huang et al. into a claim because they are taught to be useful for the same purpose of adhesion and battery purpose in [0005] and [0019] of Huang et al. and [0007] of the instant specification of ‘989. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant application and claim 3 of ‘465, they identically claim:
The binder characterized by that the alkenyl formic acid monomer is acrylic acid;
and/or the aromatic vinyl monomer is styrene;
PNG
media_image8.png
56
119
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and/or the structure of the acrylate monomer is wherein R31 is a linear or branched C4-8 alkyl.
‘989 also claims and/or in the triblock polymer, the alkenyl formic acid monomer is an acrylic acid;
and/or in the triblock polymer, the acrylate monomer is methyl acrylate which ‘465 fails to claim.
However, Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] that comprises a second block polymer wherein the second block polymer is a lithiated triblock polymer by acrylic acid/ esters/acrylic acid block type copolymer in [0010], and the triblock polymer has a structure shown as E-F-E by acrylic acid/esters/acrylic acid in [0010] and [0011].
Huang et al. teaches in the triblock polymer the alkenyl formic acid monomer is an acrylic acid by the acrylic acid in [0010] and [0011].
Huang et al. teaches in the triblock polymer the acrylate monomer is methyl acrylate by the acrylate monomeric units in [0010] and [0011] and example of MA in [0054] which is reasonably understood to mean methyl acrylate.
Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] for a battery in [0005] to support cohesive forces and mechanical strength in [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the binders of ‘989 and Huang et al. into a claim because they are taught to be useful for the same purpose of adhesion and battery purpose in [0005] and [0019] of Huang et al. and [0007] of the instant specification of ‘989. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant application and claim 5 of ‘465, they identically claim:
The binder characterized by that the lithiated block polymer has a structure represented by formula (I);
PNG
media_image9.png
89
218
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
13
17
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein n is 10-50; x is 200-500; y is 400-1000; z is 200-500; R41 is C4-8 alkyl; R42 and R43 are phenyl or C14 alkyl-substituted phenyl.
‘989 also claims and/or the second block polymer has a structure shown as Formula (II), wherein k is 70~700, l is 70~700, and m is 70~700;
PNG
media_image11.png
45
152
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(II) which ‘465 fails to claim.
However, Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] that comprises a second block polymer wherein the second block polymer is a triblock polymer by acrylic acid/ esters/acrylic acid block type copolymer in [0010], and the triblock polymer has a structure shown as E-F-E by acrylic acid/esters/acrylic acid in [0010] and [0011].
Huang et al. teaches in the triblock polymer, the acrylic acid in [0010] and [0011].
Huang et al. teaches in the triblock polymer, the acrylate monomeric units in [0010] and [0011] and example of MA in [0054] which is reasonably understood to mean methyl acrylate and meets the F block shown in the center of the structure shown.
Huang et al. teaches wherein k is 70~700 by n1=70~700 in [0011] of AA, where l is 70~700 by n2=70~700 in [0011] of Ar, and m is 70~700 by n3=70~700 in [0011] of the other AA.
Huang et al. teaches an electrode adhesive in [0009-0010] for a battery in [0005] to support cohesive forces and mechanical strength in [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the binders of ‘989 and Huang et al. into a singular claim because they are taught to be useful for the same purpose of adhesion and battery purpose in [0005] and [0019] of Huang et al. and [0007] of the instant specification of ‘989. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
Ueda teaches that the lithiating a binder in ([0054]; [0012]; [0013]) to increase adhesion in the negative electrode and improves cycle characteristics (Ueda [0054])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huang et al. and lithiate the binder of Huang et al. such as in Ueda and therefore modify the claim. Doing so increases adhesion in the negative electrode and improves cycle characteristics (Ueda [0054]).
The combined teachings would result in a claim comprising lithiation of the acrylic acid of Huang et al., meeting the E block of lithiated acrylic acid shown on the ends of the structure above.
The degrees of polymerization of Huang et al. overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application and claim 6 of ‘465, they identically claim:
The binder characterized by that the lithiated block polymer is wherein n is 10-50; x is 200-500; y is 400-1000; z is 200-500.
PNG
media_image12.png
119
211
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 July 29th, 2026
Prosecution Insights