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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/16/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejection over Maeda under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-8 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejection over Maeda in view of Fukumine under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-8 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 8, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claim 4, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20030039886) in view of Hanasaki (US20130119318A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a binder for a negative electrode of a rechargeable lithium battery (¶[0018]), the binder comprising:
a copolymer of a styrene-based monomer and an acrylate-based monomer,
wherein a wt.% of the styrene-based monomer to the acrylate-based monomer is 0-40% leading to an overlapping range of a mole ratio of 1:1 to 1:3
but does not disclose the binder to has a swelling degree to an electrolyte of 50-70 wt.%, is crosslinked, or an initiator and water
Hanasaki, related to binders for batteries, teaches a styrene and acrylate based binder (¶[0030]) with a crosslinking agent(¶[0038]), and an emulsifier(i.e. surfactant) of fatty acid salts and alkylbenzene sulfonates, an initiator in an emulsion which contains water(¶[0050]), and a swelling degree of 300% or less(¶[0016]).
One or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the using the crosslinking agent in the emulsion polymerization utilizing water and an initiator in the binder of Zhang would improve the swelling degree(¶[038]) thereby improving film stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the crosslinking agent in the emulsion polymerization utilizing water and an initiator of Hanasaki in the binder of Zhang to improve swelling(¶[038]) thereby improving film stability.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhang discloses the binder of claim 1 and Zhang discloses wherein the styrene-based monomer is styrene (¶[0020]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhang further discloses the binder of claim 1 and Zhang further discloses wherein the acrylate-based monomer is 2-ethylhexylacrylate, methyl methacrylate or butyl methacrylate (¶[0020]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhang further discloses the binder of claim 1, and Hanasaki further discloses wherein the binder is an aqueous binder (¶[0023]), see water dispersible).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang further discloses the binder of claim 1 and Zhang further discloses it may be used in a negative electrode sheet(¶[0018]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhang further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, which may contain the negative electrode of claim 6 and also include a positive electrode and an electrolyte (¶[0018).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanasaki (US20130119318A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hanasaki, related to binders for batteries, teaches a styrene and acrylate based binder (¶[0029]) with styrene at 15-70% by mass and the acrylate (i.e. other ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic esters, ¶[0033]-[0034]) at 25-85% by mass with a crosslinking agent which may be triallyl cyanurate, vinyl trimethoxy silane, vinyl triethoxy silane, γ-methacryloyloxypropyl trimethoxy silane, and γ-methacryloyloxypropyl triethoxy silane (¶[0038]) and a swelling degree of 300% or less(¶[0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights