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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted December 19, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 9/15/2025:
Claims 1-19 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 have been amended and Claims 16-19 are newly added.
The objection to the abstract has been overcome in light of the amendment
The objection to Claim 8 has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained. All changes made to the rejection were necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered. The amended limitations and newly added claims have been addressed in the rejection below.
Arguments directed at Claims 1 and 10
Applicant argues that the prior art of record is silent regarding the sulfur donor as an additive mixed into the binder composition and does not exhibit the effects in terms of the 3D network structure formation within the binder.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the sulfur donor being mixed into the binder composition and the effects in terms of the 3D network structure formation within the binder) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims require a binder comprising covalent bonds between a polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds and a sulfur of a sulfur donor, and Yoshida discloses a binder with a cross-linked structure between carbon-carbon double bonds and sulfur (the sulfur is from sulfur solid electrolytes, functioning as sulfur donors) (see abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0014], [0025], [0094]-[0097], and [0141]). As such, further definition of the sulfur donor in the claims is suggested.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the range of the vulcanization accelerator.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoshida discloses 0.2 parts by weight of the vulcanization accelerator is mixed with 50 parts by weight of the polymer, resulting in 0.4 parts by weight of the vulcanization accelerator based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer (which is substantially close the claimed range), and further discloses the amount of the vulcanization accelerator may range from 0.1-15 parts by weight of the solid portion (see paragraphs [0051] and [0141]-[0142]). Jung discloses if vulcanization reaction accelerators are included in too small of an amount, there is almost no effect of improving the reaction speed and if vulcanization reaction accelerators are included in too large of amount, the capacity of electrode (anode) decreases (see paragraphs [0015] and [0022]). In the combination, a skilled artisan would be capable of achieving the appropriate amount of vulcanization accelerator based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds by optimizing the amount of accelerator for the reaction speed and electrode.
Applicant argues that the prior art would exhibit hard rubber or high brittleness due to excessive carbon sulfur bonding, however arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida US-20150086875-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yoshida) in view of Jung et al. KR-20040033678-A (hereinafter referred to as Jung) and Yang et al. US-20150225551-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yang).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16-19, Yoshida discloses a binder for an all-solid-state battery, having a three-dimensional structure (cross-linked structure from carbon-carbon double bond and sulfur) formed by the covalent bonding of a carbon of a polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds with a sulfur of a sulfur donor through the heat treatment of a binder composition (see abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0014], [0025], [0094]-[0097], and [0141]), wherein the binder composition comprises the polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds (Yoshida discloses a polymer with carbon double bounds such as styrene-butadiene (SBR) (see paragraph [0039]) which is the same compound suggested by the instant application and would as such also contain unsaturated carbon double bonds (see Claim 2 of instant application)).
Yoshida additionally discloses crosslinking the polymer binder with sulfur containing solid electrolytes (functioning as a sulfur donor) and that the solid electrolytes must be in a large enough amount to obtain sufficient conductivity but small enough such that an appropriate amount of active material can be used to avoid capacity decline of the battery (see paragraphs [0047] and [0083]). As such, the amount of solid electrolytes is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II). When optimizing the amount of solid electrolytes, a skilled artisan would further be optimizing the amount of solid electrolytes based on 100 parts by weight of a polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds, such that the solid electrolytes (functioning as the sulfur donor) are 1-30 parts by weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to achieve 1-30 parts by weight of a sulfur donor based on 100 parts by weight of a polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds as a matter of optimizing the sulfur donor amount to obtain sufficient conductivity and avoid capacity decline of the battery.
Yoshida further discloses the binder includes an organic solvent (see paragraphs [0103]-[0104]).
Yoshida additionally discloses 0.2 parts by weight of the vulcanization accelerator is mixed with 50 parts by weight of the polymer, resulting in 0.4 parts by weight of the vulcanization accelerator based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer, and further discloses the amount of the vulcanization accelerator may range from 0.1-15 parts by weight (see paragraphs [0051] and [0141]-[0142]). As such, the range for the amount of vulcanization accelerator substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the binder based on 100 parts by weight of a polymer including 0.5-4 parts by weight of a vulcanization accelerator (meeting Claim 16 and Claim 19).
Yoshida is silent on the binder including 3-10 parts by weight of a first activating agent, and 1-4 parts by weight of a second activating agent.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vulcanization reactions, Yang discloses using a primary accelerator (overlapping with the accelerator of Yoshida) and further using various secondary accelerators (functioning as first and second activating agents) (see paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and [0054]-[0055]). Yang further discloses mixtures of resin systems (having multiple accelerators) provide a synergistic effect (see paragraphs [0054]-[0055] and Table 1) and a person having ordinary skill in the art would further understand the accelerators improve the reaction rate.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of binder compositions (see paragraph [0004]), Jung discloses a binder including a polymer having a double bond and capable of being crosslinked by sulfur, sulfur (functioning as a sulfur donor), and a vulcanization reaction accelerator (see paragraph [0011]-[0012]).
Jung discloses if vulcanization reaction accelerators are included in too small of an amount, there is almost no effect of improving the reaction speed and if vulcanization reaction accelerators are included in too large of amount, the capacity of electrode (anode) decreases (see paragraphs [0015] and [0022]). As such, the amount of vulcanization reaction accelerators is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder disclosed by Yoshida wherein the binder further includes 3-10 parts by weight of a first activating agent, and 1-4 parts by weight of a second activating agent, as disclosed by Yang and Jung, in order to improve the reaction speed and avoid decreasing the capacity of electrode (meeting Claims 17-19).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Yoshida further discloses the polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds may be selected from styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), and ethylene propylene rubber (EPDM) (see paragraph [0039]).
Yoshida additionally discloses the vulcanization accelerator may be thiazole-based, guanidine-based, sulfenamide-based, thiourea-based, thiuram-based, dithiocarbamate-based and xanthate-based compounds (see paragraph [0051]).
Yoshida additionally discloses the organic solvent may be toluene (see paragraphs [0041] and [0103]).
Yoshida and Yang are silent on the sulfur donor being elementary sulfur or an organic sulfur donor.
However, Jung discloses the sulfur donor may be elementary sulfur (elemental sulfur) (see paragraphs [0012] and [0041]). Jung additionally discloses elementary sulfur can be used as an active material and effectively crosslink with the polymer binder (which the sulfur donor is used for in the binder of Yoshida) (see paragraphs [0012], [0038], and [0041]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use elementary sulfur, as disclosed by Jung, in the binder of Yoshida as it is a suitable material to crosslink with the polymer binder and may also function as the active material.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Yoshida additionally discloses the sulfur atoms of the solid electrolyte are crosslinked with the diene polymer of the binder, and the binder is included in the solid electrolyte layer (see abstract and paragraph [0122]). Yoshida further discloses the solid electrolyte is sulfide-based (see abstract and paragraphs [0016] and [0074]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Yoshida additionally discloses an electrode comprising the binder in the aforementioned claim 1, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, and an electrode active material (see abstract and paragraphs [0016], [0074], and [0076]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Yoshida further discloses an all-solid-state battery, comprising a positive electrode layer; a negative electrode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer, interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer, wherein at least one of the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer comprises the binder as defined in the aforementioned claim 1 (binder in adhesive layer of positive and negative electrode layers) (see abstract and paragraphs [0147]-[0150]).
Yoshida also discloses the sulfur atoms of the solid electrolyte are crosslinked with the diene polymer of the binder, and the binder is included in the solid electrolyte layer (see abstract and paragraph [0122]). Yoshida further discloses the solid electrolyte is sulfide-based (see abstract and paragraphs [0016] and [0074]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above). Yoshida further discloses secondary batteries, as the one disclosed, may be used in a transport device (motorcycle or electric vehicle), energy storage device (compact power storage device), and communication device (portable electronic device) (see paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoshida discloses method for preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery (see abstract), which includes a step of preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery, having a three-dimensional structure (cross-linked structure from carbon-carbon double bond and sulfur) formed by the covalent bonding of a carbon of a polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds with a sulfur of a sulfur donor through the heat treatment of a binder composition (see abstract and paragraphs [0010]-[0014], [0025], [0094]-[0097], and [0141]), wherein the binder composition comprises the polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds (Yoshida discloses a polymer with carbon double bounds such as styrene-butadiene (SBR) (see paragraph [0039]) which is the same compound suggested by the instant application and would as such also contain unsaturated carbon double bonds (see Claim 2 of instant application)).
Yoshida additionally discloses crosslinking the polymer binder with sulfur containing solid electrolytes (functioning as a sulfur donor) and that the solid electrolytes must be in a large enough amount to obtain sufficient conductivity but small enough such that an appropriate amount of active material can be used to avoid capacity decline of the battery (see paragraphs [0047] and [0083]). As such, the amount of solid electrolytes is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II). When optimizing the amount of solid electrolytes, a skilled artisan would further be optimizing the amount of solid electrolytes based on 100 parts by weight of a polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds, such that the solid electrolytes (functioning as the sulfur donor) are 1-30 parts by weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to achieve 1-30 parts by weight of a sulfur donor based on 100 parts by weight of a polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds as a matter of optimizing the sulfur donor amount to obtain sufficient conductivity and avoid capacity decline of the battery.
Yoshida further discloses the binder includes an organic solvent (see paragraphs [0103]-[0104]).
Yoshida additionally discloses 0.2 parts by weight of the vulcanization accelerator is mixed with 50 parts by weight of the polymer, resulting in 0.4 parts by weight of the vulcanization accelerator based on 100 parts by weight of the polymer, and further discloses the amount of the vulcanization accelerator may range from 0.1-15 parts by weight (see paragraphs [0051] and [0141]-[0142]). As such, the range for the amount of vulcanization accelerator substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the binder based on 100 parts by weight of a polymer including 0.5-4 parts by weight of a vulcanization accelerator.
Yoshida is silent on the binder including 3-10 parts by weight of a first activating agent, and 1-4 parts by weight of a second activating agent.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vulcanization reactions, Yang discloses using a primary accelerator (overlapping with the accelerator of Yoshida) and further using various secondary accelerators (functioning as first and second activating agents) (see paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and [0054]-[0055]). Yang further discloses mixtures of resin systems (having multiple accelerators) provide a synergistic effect (see paragraphs [0054]-[0055] and Table 1) and a person having ordinary skill in the art would further understand the accelerators improve the reaction rate.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of binder compositions (see paragraph [0004]), Jung discloses a binder including a polymer having a double bond and capable of being crosslinked by sulfur, sulfur (functioning as a sulfur donor), and a vulcanization reaction accelerator (see paragraph [0011]-[0012]).
Jung discloses if vulcanization reaction accelerators are included in too small of an amount, there is almost no effect of improving the reaction speed and if vulcanization reaction accelerators are included in too large of amount, the capacity of electrode (anode) decreases (see paragraphs [0015] and [0022]). As such, the amount of vulcanization reaction accelerators is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder disclosed by Yoshida wherein the binder further includes 3-10 parts by weight of a first activating agent, and 1-4 parts by weight of a second activating agent, as disclosed by Yang and Jung, in order to improve the reaction speed and avoid decreasing the capacity of electrode.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yoshida discloses the method for preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Yoshida further discloses the polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds may be selected from styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), and ethylene propylene rubber (EPDM) (see paragraph [0039]).
Yoshida additionally discloses the vulcanization accelerator may be thiazole- based, guanidine-based, sulfenamide-based, thiourea-based, thiuram-based, dithiocarbamate-based and xanthate-based compounds (see paragraph [0051]).
Yoshida additionally discloses the organic solvent may be toluene (see paragraphs [0041] and [0103]).
Yoshida and Yang are silent on the sulfur donor being elementary sulfur or an organic sulfur donor.
However, Jung discloses the sulfur donor may be elementary sulfur (elemental sulfur) (see paragraphs [0012] and [0041]). Jung additionally discloses elementary sulfur can be used an active material and effectively crosslink with the polymer binder, as the sulfur donor is used for in the binder of Yoshida. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use elementary sulfur, as disclosed by Jung, in the binder of Yoshida as it is a suitable material to crosslink with the polymer binder and may also function as the active material.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Jung and Yang as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of A.Y. Coran Consulting, "Vulcanization", 2013, Elsevier Inc., The Science and Technology of Rubber, Pages 337-381 (hereinafter referred to as Coran).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 and claim 10 (see rejections of claim 1 and claim 10 above).
Yoshida and Jung are silent on the first activating agent being ZnO, Zn2SiO4 or a mixture thereof, and the second activating agent being stearic acid.
However, Yang discloses both activators of zinc oxide and stearic acid may be used as secondary accelerators (functioning as first and second activating agents) with a primary accelerator such as a sulfenamide (as is used as the vulcanization accelerator in Yoshida, see rejection of claim 2 above) (see paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and [0054]-[0055]). As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to use these activators with the vulcanization accelerator of Yoshida as they are commonly known in the art to promote the vulcanization process. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of vulcanization with sulfur (see pages 343-350), Coran discloses, in recipes for accelerated sulfur vulcanization systems, that ZnO (zinc oxide) and stearic acid are commonly used as activators together (see pages 348 and 365 and Table 7.4). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include ZnO and stearic acid as first and second activators, as disclosed by Yang and Coran, in the binder of modified Yoshida as they are suitable materials to promote the vulcanization process.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Yoshida and Yang are silent on the first activating agent and the second activating agent mixed at a weight ratio of 3-5:1.
However, Jung discloses if vulcanization reaction accelerators (including ZnO (zinc oxide) and stearic acid) are included in too small of an amount, there is almost no effect of improving the reaction speed and if vulcanization reaction accelerators are included in too large of amount, the capacity of electrode (anode) decreases (see paragraphs [0015], [0020], and [0022]). As such, the amount of vulcanization reaction accelerators is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II). When optimizing the amount of each activator, a skilled artisan would also optimize the ratio between the activators.
Additionally, Coran discloses the activators may further be used in various ratios of ZnO to stearic acid ranging from about 2.5-6:1 (see pages 348 and 365 and Table 7.4). This range substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of first activating agent and the second activating agent are mixed at a weight ratio of 3-5:1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder disclosed by Yoshida wherein the first activating agent and the second activating agent mixed at a weight ratio of 3-5:1, as disclosed by Jung and Coran, as these are well-known activators in the art and optimizing their amounts leads to improvement of the reaction speed and avoids a decrease in electrode capacity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Jung and Yang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chiyou et al. JP-2003123758-A (hereinafter referred to as Chiyou).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Yoshida, Jung, and Yang are silent on the binder showing a polysulfide bond peak and a disulfide bond peak in a wavelength range of 435-445 cm-1 and 500-510 cm-1, respectively, as analyzed by Raman spectrometry, and the ratio of the intensity of the polysulfide bond peak/disulfide bond peak is 1.1-3.1.
However, in the same field of endeavor of polysulfide and disulfide bonds, Chiyou discloses peaks in the Raman spectrum for disulfide and polysulfide bonds appear around 400 cm-1 to 525 cm-1 (see paragraphs [019], [0025], [0027], [0034], )
Chiyou additionally discloses obtaining the appropriate bonds with the appropriate peaks can establish uniformity of the molecular structure, leading to a battery with a high capacity, excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics, and high reliability (see paragraphs [0013]-[0015] and [0025]). As such, the polysulfide and disulfide bond peaks (and consequently the ratio between them) are result effective variables and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II). So, a skilled artisan would be motivated to further optimize the bond peaks within the range of 400 cm-1 to 525 cm-1 to arrive at a polysulfide bond peak and a disulfide bond peak in a wavelength range of 435-445 cm-1 and 500-510 cm-1, respectively, as analyzed by Raman spectrometry, and the ratio of the intensity of the polysulfide bond peak/disulfide bond peak is 1.1-3.1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder disclosed by Yoshida, Jung, and Yang wherein the binder is optimize to show a polysulfide bond peak and a disulfide bond peak in a wavelength range of 435-445 cm-1 and 500-510 cm-1, respectively, as analyzed by Raman spectrometry, and the ratio of the intensity of the polysulfide bond peak/disulfide bond peak is 1.1-3.1, as disclosed by Chiyou, in order to achieve uniformity of the molecular structure, leading to a battery with a high capacity, excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics, and high reliability.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Jung and Yang as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Kubo et al. US-20170149063-A (hereinafter referred to as Kubo) and Coran.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yoshida discloses the method for preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Yoshida is silent on the heat treatment in the step of preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery is carried out at a temperature of 120-180°C under vacuum or inert atmosphere.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heat treatments for binders, Kubo discloses a suitable heat treatment temperature range of 120-350°C should be carried out in a non-oxidizing atmosphere (which a skilled artisan would recognize could be an inert atmosphere or vacuum, as neither contain oxygen) (see abstract and paragraph [0056]).
Kubo further discloses the non-oxidizing atmosphere helps avoid oxidation reactions (see paragraph [0056]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of vulcanization with sulfur (see pages 343-350), Coran discloses accelerated sulfur vulcanization systems are commonly carried out between 140-160°C (page 365 Table 7.4), so a skilled artisan would be motivated to use a temperature in that range as it is common in the art for the materials they are using.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Yoshida, Jung, and Yang wherein the heat treatment in the step of preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery is carried out at a temperature of 120-180°C under vacuum or inert atmosphere, as disclosed by Kubo and Coran, in order to avoid oxidation reactions and operate under normal conditions known in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Jung and Yang as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Kubo, Coran, and Chiyou.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yoshida discloses the binder for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Yoshida is silent on the sulfur donator is elementary sulfur and the first activating agent being ZnO, the second activating agent being stearic acid and the organic solvent being butyl butyrate.
However, Jung discloses the sulfur donor may be elementary sulfur (elemental sulfur) (see paragraphs [0012] and [0041]). Jung additionally discloses elementary sulfur can be used an active material and effectively crosslink with the polymer binder, as the sulfur donor is used for in the binder of Yoshida. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Jung additionally discloses an ester may be used as a strong polar solvent in combination with a weak polar solvent (such as toluene, which is disclosed by Yoshida) to be able to uniformly disperse the mixture (see paragraphs [0019] and [0030]-[0034]). As such, a skilled artisan is capable of choosing an appropriate ester for their solvent, such as butyl butyrate. Jung further discloses the accelerators may be ZnO (zinc oxide) or stearic acid, which a skilled artisan would recognize as appropriate materials to use as activating agents to improve the reaction speed of the vulcanization process (see paragraphs [0020]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use elementary sulfur, butyl butyrate, and ZnO and stearic acid as disclosed by Jung, in the binder of Yoshida as it is a suitable material to use in the polymer binder.
Yoshida and Jung are silent on the polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds being butadiene rubber (BR), the vulcanization accelerator being 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), the binder for an all-solid-state battery comprising first activating agent and the second activating agent are mixed at a weight ratio of 4-5:1.
However, Coran discloses that butadiene rubber (BR) is a common material to be vulcanized by sulfur in the presence of organic accelerators (see page 337). Coran also discloses MBT is a well-known accelerator to be used in sulfur vulcanization (see pages 348-349 and Table 7.1), so a skilled artisan would find it suitable to use in the binder of Yoshida. Coran further discloses in recipes for accelerated sulfur vulcanization systems that ZnO (zinc oxide) and stearic acid are commonly used as activators together (see pages 348 and 365 and Table 7.4). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Coran further discloses the activators may further be used in various ratios of ZnO to stearic acid ranging from about 2.5-6:1 (see pages 348 and 365 and Table 7.4). This range substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of first activating agent and the second activating agent are mixed at a weight ratio of 4-5:1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method for preparing an all-solid-state battery discloses by Yoshida wherein the polymer having unsaturated carbon double bonds is butadiene rubber (BR), the vulcanization accelerator is 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), and the binder for an all-solid-state battery comprising first activating agent and the second activating agent are mixed at a weight ratio of 4-5:1, as disclosed by Coran, as these are common materials and conditions in the art.
Yoshida, Jung, and Yang are silent on the heat treatment in the step of preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery being carried out at a temperature of 140-1600C under vacuum for 10-14 hours.
However, Kubo discloses a suitable heat treatment temperature range of 120-350°C should be carried out in in a non-oxidizing atmosphere (which a skilled artisan would recognize could be an inert atmosphere or vacuum, as neither contain oxygen) (see abstract and paragraph [0056]). Kubo additionally discloses the time for the heat treatment depends on the material and can range from about 2 hours to 10 hours (see paragraphs [0074]-[0076] and [0081]), and it is within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art to decide the appropriate time for the heat treatment depending on the binder they are forming.
Kubo further discloses the non-oxidizing atmosphere helps avoid oxidation reactions (see paragraph [0056]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of vulcanization with sulfur (see pages 343-350), Coran discloses accelerated sulfur vulcanization systems are commonly carried out between 140-160°C (page 365 Table 7.4), so a skilled artisan would be motivated to use a temperature in that range as it is common in the art for the materials they are using. Coran additionally discloses the time for the heat treatment depends on the extent of the cure and temperature (see pages 340-343), and it is within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art to decide the appropriate time for the heat treatment depending on the binder they are forming.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Yoshida, Jung, and Yang wherein the heat treatment in the step of preparing a binder for an all-solid-state battery is carried out at a temperature of 120-180°C under vacuum for 10-14 hours, as disclosed by Kubo and Coran, in order to avoid oxidation reactions and operate under normal conditions known in the art.
Yoshida, Jung, Coran, and Yang are silent on the binder for an all-solid-state battery showing a polysulfide bond peak and a disulfide bond peak in a wavelength range of 435-445 cm-1 and 500-510 cm-1, respectively, as analyzed by Raman spectrometry, wherein the ratio of the intensity of the polysulfide bond peak/disulfide bond peak may be 1.4-1.8.
However, Chiyou discloses peaks in the Raman spectrum for disulfide and polysulfide bonds appear around 400 cm-1 to 525 cm-1 (see paragraphs [019], [0025], [0027], [0034], )
Chiyou additionally discloses obtaining the appropriate bonds with the appropriate peaks can establish uniformity of the molecular structure, leading to a battery with a high capacity, excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics, and high reliability (see paragraphs [0013]-[0015] and [0025]). As such, the polysulfide and disulfide bond peaks (and consequently the ratio between them) are result effective variables and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II). So, a skilled artisan would be motivated to further optimize the bond peaks within the range of 400 cm-1 to 525 cm-1 to arrive at a polysulfide bond peak and a disulfide bond peak in a wavelength range of 435-445 cm-1 and 500-510 cm-1, respectively, as analyzed by Raman spectrometry, and the ratio of the intensity of the polysulfide bond peak/disulfide bond peak is 1.1-3.1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the binder disclosed by Yoshida, Jung, Yang, and Coran wherein the binder is optimize to show a polysulfide bond peak and a disulfide bond peak in a wavelength range of 435-445 cm-1 and 500-510 cm-1, respectively, as analyzed by Raman spectrometry, and the ratio of the intensity of the polysulfide bond peak/disulfide bond peak is 1.1-3.1, as disclosed by Chiyou, in order to achieve uniformity of the molecular structure, leading to a battery with a high capacity, excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics, and high reliability.
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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. 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, Ula Ruddock 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729