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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on November 21, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, and 13 are amended; and claims 4-5 and 15 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-3 and 6-14 pending for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng, et al. (CN 111490249 A), cited on IDS, in view of Shay (US 4,322,331), cited on IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Peng teaches a lithium-sulfur battery positive electrode including a cationic binder (¶ [0008]-[0009]). The cationic binder is a cationic acrylamide copolymer wherein the polymerizable cationic monomer may include methacryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride (DMC), acryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride (DAC), N,N-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA), methacryloyloxyethyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride (AODBAC), and other acyloxy and tertiary amino esters ((meth)acrylate-based monomers) (¶ [0027], Ln. 2-8). In Example 1, Peng teaches a binder containing methacryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride (DMC), shown in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peng does not expressly recite a cationic monomer having a cross-linked form represented by Formula 2.
Shay teaches a quaternary ammonium salt that is polymerizable (Col. 1, Ln. 60-62), represented by the formula below (represented by Formula 2 of instant claim 3). Shay teaches a cross-linkable conductive coating for a substrate including an aqueous solution of the quaternary ammonium salt (Col. 2, Ln. 15-20). Shay further teaches that the coating including the quaternary ammonium salt provides suitable adhesion to a substrate (Col. 4, Ln. 65-68).
PNG
media_image2.png
132
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cationic binder of Peng to include the quaternary ammonium salt of Shay as a cross-linked cationic monomer in addition to the DMC included in Example 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compound taught by Shay, used in an adhesive conductive coating, would be applicable to a binder for a positive electrode. One would be motivated to use the compound to provide adhesion to the binder.
Regarding claim 2, Peng in view of Shay teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Based on the formula for the quaternary ammonium salt of Shay provided above, the combination of references further teaches that the cation is nitrogen.
Regarding claim 3, Peng in view of Shay teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Peng teaches a binder containing methacryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride (DMC) in Example 1 (¶ [0033], Ln. 1). As shown in the figure below, the structural formula of DMC may be represented by Formula 1 of instant claim 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Peng in view of Shay teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. Peng in view of Shay does not expressly teach a cationic binder including both the cationic monomer represented by Formula 1 and the cationic monomer represented by Formula 2 in a weight ratio of cationic monomer represented by Formula 1 to cationic monomer represented by Formula 2 ranging from 0.5:2 to 2:0.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cationic binder of Peng to include the quaternary ammonium salt of Shay in addition to the cationic monomer represented by Formula 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compound taught by Shay, used in an adhesive conductive coating, would be applicable to a binder for a positive electrode. One would be motivated to include the compound in the cationic binder to provide adhesion to the binder. When combining two monomers, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the two cationic monomers in a weight ratio of 1:1, within the claimed range of 0.5:2 and 2:0.5.
Regarding claim 8, Peng in view of Shay teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. The combination of references does not expressly teach a cationic monomer represented by Formula 1a or 1b of the instant specification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cationic binder of Peng meeting the limitations of claimed formula 1 to include an alternate halogen such as iodide to the cationic monomers taught in the reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that halogens would be expected to perform the same function. Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a compound with a similar structure will have similar properties. For example, Peng teaches the cationic monomer methacryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride (DMC), with the structure shown below. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the claimed cationic monomer of Formula 1a based on the similarity in structure with the expectation of similar results (MPEP 2144.09(I)).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Peng in view of Shay teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. The combination of references does not expressly teach a cationic monomer represented by Formula 2a or 2b of the instant specification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the quaternary ammonium salt of Shay meeting the limitations of claimed formula 2 to include an alternate halogen such as bromine. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that halogens would be expected to perform the same function. Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a compound with a similar structure will have similar properties. For example, Shay teaches a quaternary ammonium salt with the structure shown below. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the claimed cationic monomer of Formula 2a based on the similarity in structure with the expectation of similar results (MPEP 2144.09(I)).
PNG
media_image2.png
132
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10-12, Peng teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium secondary battery) including porous activated carbon, sublimated sulfur powder (positive electrode active material containing a sulfur-carbon composite), a cationic adhesive containing methacryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride (DMC), and a conductive agent in a ratio of 15:70:10:5 (positive electrode binder included in an amount of 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode) in Example 1 (¶ [0033], Ln. 1-2). Peng in view of Shay teaches a positive electrode binder meeting the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the binder of Peng in view of Shay in the same application as the binder of Peng is used in Example 1 of the reference with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 13-14, Peng teaches a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium secondary battery) including the positive electrode of Example 1, a copper-lithium composite tape as the negative electrode (lithium metal negative electrode), a separator, and electrolyte (¶ [0043], Ln. 3-6). While it is acknowledged that Peng does not expressly recite that the separator is interposed in between the positive and negative electrodes, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the separator is interposed in between the positive and negative electrodes in order for the battery to function without short-circuiting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the positive electrode of Peng in view of Shay in the same application as the positive electrode of Peng is used in the lithium-sulfur battery of the reference with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng, et al. (CN 111490249 A) in view of Shay (US 4,322,331), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon, et al. (US 2018/0114988 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Peng in view of Shay teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of references does not expressly recite that the cationic binder comprises 5 to 15% by weight of the polymerizable cationic monomer (cationic (meth)acrylate-based monomer containing at least one cation or a derivative thereof) and 85 to 95% by weight of a solvent relative to the total weight of the cationic binder.
Yoon teaches a binder for a lithium-sulfur secondary battery cathode (¶ [0016], Ln. 1-3). The binder includes a polymer including a polymerized unit of an acrylic monomer such as methacrylic acid (¶ [0019], Ln. 1-5). Yoon teaches that the binder may include a polymerized unit of an alkyl (meth)acrylate and that the alkyl (meth)acrylate may be included in the binder in a polymerized unit ratio of 5 to 30 parts by weight (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-2). Yoon teaches that the binder may be included in the total composition of the cathode active layer in a ratio of 0.01 to 10 parts by weight in order to secure desired binding properties and effectively prevent the dissolution of lithium polysulfide (¶ [0052], Ln. 1-11). Yoon further teaches that the binder composition includes a ratio of solvent that is suitably selected in consideration of the desired coating property (¶ [0065], Ln. 1-3). Yoon does not expressly recite that the binder contains 5 to 15% by weight of the (meth)acrylate-based monomer and 85 to 95% by weight of a solvent relative to the total weight of the binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cationic binder of Peng in view of Shay to include the polymerizable cationic monomer (cationic (meth)acrylate-based monomer containing at least one cation or a derivative thereof) in an amount of 5 to 30 parts by weight based on the teachings of Yoon. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a solvent in an amount that results in a desired coating property based on the teachings of Yoon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust the amount of polymer and solvent in the binder to reach the desired viscosity of the binder while maintaining the desired binding properties and effectively preventing the dissolution of lithium polysulfide through routine experimentation. It would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a binder containing the polymerizable cationic monomer in an amount 5 to 15% by weight, resulting in a solvent content of 85 to 95% by weight, through routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 3 and 6 for minor informalities are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, and 6 in the response filed November 21, 2025.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 to incorporate Formula 2, the previous rejections of claims 1-3 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Peng, et al. (CN 111490249 A) are overcome, however, upon further consideration the reference is still applicable under 35 U.S.C. 103 and used in combination with Shay (US 4,322,331) in the rejections above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
The Applicant argues, see pages 9-11 of the remarks filed November 21, 2025, that Shay constitutes non-analogous art, and therefore one would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Shay with Peng, that neither Peng nor Shay teach the advantages of reducing volume change that occurs during the charge and discharge process, and that Shay does not teach a binder having a structural unit derived from the cationic (meth)acrylate-based monomer of Formula 2.
With respect to the argument that Shay constitutes non-analogous art, and therefore one would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Shay with Peng, this argument is not persuasive. Shay teaches the inclusion of a quaternary ammonium salt in a conductive coating to impart conductive characteristics (Col. 4, Ln. 65-68, Col. 5, Ln. 1). Shay additionally teaches that the conductive coating provides suitable adhesion to a number of substrates, including metal (Col. 5, Ln. 1-3). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine teachings of Shay to a binder for a positive electrode in a lithium-sulfur battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that teachings regarding a conductive coating suitable for adhering to multiple substrates would be applicable to a binder for a positive electrode.
With respect to the argument that neither Peng nor Shay teach the advantages of reducing volume change that occurs during the charge and discharge process. This argument is not persuasive. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With respect to the argument that Shay does not teach a binder having a structural unit derived from the cationic (meth)acrylate-based monomer of Formula 2, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785