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
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are currently pending. Claim 8 is canceled. Claim 1 is amended. Support for the amended claim is found in the claims as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109768282 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20040234851 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a binder composition for a positive electrode of a lithium-sulfur battery (paragraphs 0010, 0016), comprising: a binder (paragraphs 0010-0011, high-viscosity binder); and gum arabic (paragraph 0012). Wang further discloses that the binder provides high viscosity (paragraph 0015), similar to a thickener. However, Wang does not disclose a thickener as a third component.
Kim discloses a binder composition for a positive electrode of a lithium-sulfur battery (Kim paragraph 0022). Kim further discloses that the binder includes a cellulose-based thickener to increase the viscosity of the binder (Kim paragraphs 0022-0026). The reference teaches that the thickener increases the bonding strength of the binder and facilitates coating of a positive active material composition (Kim paragraph 0026). Kim and Wang are analogous because they both disclose binders for lithium-sulfur batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binder composition disclosed by Wang to include the thickener disclosed by Kim. Doing so would increase the bonding strength of the binder and facilitate coating of a positive active material composition.
Wang does not explicitly disclose that gum arabic is contained in the binder composition in an amount of 30 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the thickener. However, Wang does disclose that the highly dispersable binder, which may be gum Arabic, and the high-viscosity binder (which is similar to a thickener and may be CMC), which is responsible for increasing viscosity of the binder, are mixed at a weight ratio of 3:1-1:3 (paragraph 0014). Wang teaches that the mixing ratio is adjusted to ensure the advantages of both solvents (paragraph 0015). Wang is clearly teaching that the amount of gum Arabic is a results-effective variable that controls the viscosity and dispersibility of the binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed 30-100 parts by weight of gum Arabic with respect to 100 parts by weight of the thickener because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses that the binder is selected from the group consisting of hydroxypropyl cellulose and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang is silent regarding wherein the thickener is selected from the group consisting of carboxy methyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl hydroxypropyl cellulose, ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, methyl ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose, cellulose gum and combinations thereof.
Kim discloses a binder composition for a positive electrode of a lithium-sulfur battery (Kim paragraph 0022). Kim further discloses that the binder includes a cellulose-based thickener to increase the viscosity of the binder (Kim paragraphs 0022-0026). The cellulose-based compound may be methyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl ethyl cellulose, and a mixture thereof (Kim paragraph 0025). The reference teaches that the thickener increases the bonding strength of the binder and facilitates coating of a positive active material composition (Kim paragraph 0026). Kim and Wang are analogous because they both disclose binders for lithium-sulfur batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binder composition disclosed by Wang to include the thickener disclosed by Kim. Doing so would increase the bonding strength of the binder and facilitate coating of a positive active material composition.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses that the binder is contained in the binder composition in an amount of 40 wt.% to 60 wt.% based on the total weight of the binder composition (paragraph 0062, SBR-GA binder composition at a weight ratio of 1:1, equivalent to 50% gum Arabic, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang is silent regarding wherein the thickener is contained in the binder composition in an amount of 20 wt.% to 35 wt.% based on the total weight of the binder composition.
Kim discloses a binder composition for a positive electrode of a lithium-sulfur battery (Kim paragraph 0022). Kim further discloses that the binder includes a cellulose-based thickener to increase the viscosity of the binder (Kim paragraphs 0022-0026). The thickener and binder are included in a weight ratio of 0.3:0.7, equivalent to the thickener being included in an amount of 30 wt% of the binder composition (Kim paragraph 0055). The reference teaches that the amount of thickener provides adequate viscosity to coat the active material composition without reducing the amount of active material. Kim and Wang are analogous because they both disclose binders for lithium-sulfur batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binder composition disclosed by Wang to include the thickener in the amount disclosed by Kim. Doing so would provide adequate viscosity to coat the active material composition without reducing the amount of active material.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses that gum arabic is contained in the binder composition in an amount of 10 wt.% to 30 wt.% based on the total weight of the binder composition (paragraph 0014, the high viscosity binder and highly dispersible binder, which may be gum Arabic, are mixed at a mass ratio of 3:1-1:3, overlapping the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses a positive electrode current collector; and a layer formed by applying a slurry containing the binder composition, a positive electrode active material, and an electrically conductive material on the positive electrode current collector (paragraphs 0016).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 9. Wang further discloses that the binder composition is contained in the slurry in an amount of 0.01 to 10 parts by weight, relative to 100 parts by weight of the solid content in the slurry (paragraph 0062, 10 parts by weight, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 9. Wang further discloses that the positive electrode active material is contained in the slurry in an amount of 80 parts by weight to 99 parts by weight, relative to 100 parts by weight of the solid content in the slurry (paragraph 0062, 80 parts by weight, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 9. Wang further discloses that the electrically conductive material is contained in the slurry in an amount of 0.1 to 15 parts by weight, relative to 100 parts by weight of the solid content in the slurry (paragraph 0062, 10 parts by weight, within the claimed range).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109768282 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20040234851 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20150072248 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wang is silent regarding the thickener being in a lithiated form.
Watanabe discloses a lithium-sulfur battery comprising a binder in the positive electrode (Watanabe paragraphs 0034, 0038). Watanabe further discloses that the binder includes a carboxymethyl cellulose lithium compound (paragraph 0046). The reference teaches that the binder suppresses a side chain reaction during charge/discharge to improve coulombic efficiency (paragraph 0042). Watanabe and Wang are analogous because they both disclose binders for lithium-sulfur batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the binder composition disclosed by modified Wang to include CMC-Li as disclosed by Watanabe for the purpose of improving coulombic efficiency.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109768282 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20040234851 A1) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Laicer et al. (US 20170263908 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang discloses the limitations of claim 9. Wang further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (paragraphs 0028-0029). Wang does not explicitly disclose a separator.
Laicer discloses a lithium sulfur battery (Laicer paragraph 0033) including an anode, cathode, and a heat-resistant separator (Laicer paragraph 0009). The reference teaches that the separator discloses that the separator improves safety and performance of the battery (Laicer paragraph 0011). Laicer and Wang are analogous because they both disclose lithium sulfur batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by wang to include the separator disclosed by Laicer for the purpose of improving safety and performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the claimed range of gum arabic included in the binder composition based on the weight of the thickener leads to unexpected and superior results when compared to with a binder composition that does not meet the claimed range of 30 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the thickener. Applicant points to Table 1 of the present specification and compares Example 1, which utilizes the claimed range, with Comparative Example 5, which falls outside of the claimed range. Wang does disclose that the binder provides the improved results suggested by Applicant, including high specific capacity and capacity retention (Wang paragraph 0028). However Wang does not specifically disclose the claimed range of gum arabic to thickener as recited in amended claim 1.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.). See also MPEP 716.02(d).
In this case, Applicant points to Example 1 of the present specification, which includes a thickener to gum arabic weight ratio of 1.5:1, equivalent to approximately 67 parts by weight gum arabic with respect to 100 parts by weight of thickener. Applicant compares this with Comparative Example 5, which includes a thickener to gum arabic weight ratio of 1.5:2, equivalent to approximately 133 parts by weight gum arabic with respect to 100 parts by weight of thickener. Applicant asserts that when compared, Example 1 shows improved discharge capacity and cycle performance, as evidenced by Table 1 (see present specification, pages 23-27). Applicant fails to establish evidence commensurate in scope with the claims, as the evidence fails to demonstrate that the unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range. Applicant merely provides one example within the claimed range, comparing it to another far beyond the upper boundary of the claimed range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Criticality of the claimed range is not established as only one example within and outside of the claimed range is compared, resulting in insufficient evidence that the unexpected and improved results occur over the entire claimed range, and fail to occur outside of it.
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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727