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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are currently pending;
Claims 15-16 are currently withdrawn;
Claim 6 is canceled;
Claim 1 is amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 02/23/2026
The 103 rejections are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that the newly amended range of equation 2 of 0.5 < (b+d)/(a+b+c+d+e) < 0.9 is not satisfied by the prior art of Park, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In addition to the molar ranges of the vinyl alcohol (Park [0021]; [0023]; [0139]-[0141]; 10 mol% or more compared to the rest of the polymer), corresponding to the repeating unit (b) of chemical formula 2 and molar fraction b, and the sodium acrylate (Park [0139]-[0141]; [0022]; molar ratio of the vinyl alcohol (chemical formula A in Park) to the sodium acrylate (chemical formula B-2 in Park) and B-1 is 90:10 to 10:90 and [0025] the molar ratio of B-1 to B-2 is 67:33 to 1:99), corresponding to the repeating unit (d) of chemical formula 4 and molar fraction d, the example in paragraph [0139] of Park gives a molar ratio of vinyl alcohol/n-butyl vinyl ether (interpreted as the claimed repeating unit (e) of chemical formula 5)/sodium acrylate of 3.0/1.0/1.0. This ratio equates to a molar ratio of vinyl alcohol and sodium acrylate of 0.8 ((b+d)/(b+d+e) = (3+1)/(3+1+1)) in the copolymer. Given that Park teaches the vinyl alcohol in the copolymer of [0139]-[0141] is formed through a saponification of vinyl acetate ([0057]; [0139]-[0141]), and Park also teaches that the sodium acrylate of [0139]-[0141] is formed through a saponification of methyl acrylate ([0059]; [0139]-[0141]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the degree of saponification would not be completely 100%. As such, at least a minimal amount of both the vinyl acetate (corresponding to the claimed repeating unit (a)) and methyl acrylate (corresponding to the claimed repeating unit (c)) would exist in the copolymer formed in [0139]-[0141]. The molar ratios of repeating units (a) and (c) would be minimal, and would not have a notable affect on the molar ratio of 0.8 of the copolymer formed in [0139].
In addition, the example shown in [0141] of Park also shows a copolymer of vinyl alcohol/n-butyl vinyl ether/sodium acrylate/acrylic acid with a molar ratio of 3.0/1.0/0.9/0.1. Given b+d/b+d+e = (3+0.9)/(3+0.9+1.0) = 0.7959, and the inclusion of the molar ratios of repeating units (a) and (c) would cause minimal change as explained above, the example of paragraph [0141] of Park also shows a specific case of falling within the claimed range of claimed Equation 2.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that the range of claimed Equation 2 of 0.5 < (b+d)/(a+b+c+d+e) < 0.9 demonstrates unexpected results, the examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). The examples given in Table 1 of the instant specification all demonstrate a degree of saponification that is within the claimed range with the exception of comparative example 1, which utilizes a completely different binder altogether. Given that all other examples have a degree of saponification that falls within the claimed range, no tests outside of the claimed range are compared, and therefore criticality cannot be shown.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
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 1-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR-20210020759-A), hereinafter Park, as cited in the IDS.
In regards to claim 1, Park teaches a binder for a secondary battery, the binder comprising a copolymer ([0012]), wherein the copolymer comprises a repeating unit (b) of the following Chemical Formula 2 ([0139]-[0141] vinyl alcohol), a repeating unit (d) of the following Chemical Formula 4 ([0139]-[0141] sodium acrylate), and a repeating unit (e) of the following Chemical Formula 5 ([0139]-[0141] n-butyl vinyl ether):
PNG
media_image1.png
615
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1, R3, and R5 are independently of one another substituted or unsubstituted hydrocarbyl having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; R2, R4, and R6 are independently of one another hydrogen or substituted or unsubstituted hydrocarbyl having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; Mn+ is a cation having an oxidation number of n other than a hydrogen ion; and n is an integer of 1 to 3.
Park does not explicitly disclose that the binder comprises a repeating unit (a) of the following Chemical Formula 1 and a repeating unit (c) of the following Chemical Formula 3, however, these units would implicitly be in the copolymer of Park. Park teaches that the vinyl alcohol in the copolymer of [0139]-[0141] is formed through a saponification of vinyl acetate ([0057]; [0139]-[0141]), and Park also teaches that the sodium acrylate of [0139]-[0141] is formed through a saponification of methyl acrylate ([0059]; [0139]-[0141]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the degree of saponification would not be completely 100%. As such, at least a minimal amount of both the vinyl acetate (corresponding to the claimed repeating unit (a)) and methyl acrylate (corresponding to the claimed repeating unit (c)) would exist in the copolymer formed in [0139]-[0141].
Park also teaches wherein the copolymer satisfies the following Equation 1:
0.5<(b+d)/(a+b+c+d+e)<0.9
wherein a, b, c, d, and e are mole fractions of the repeating units (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively, in the copolymer ([0021]; the chemical formula A, represented by vinyl alcohol in [0139]-[0141], is interpreted as b of the instant application, and chemical formula B-2, represented by sodium acrylate in [0139]-[0141], is interpreted as d of the instant application; [0023] molar percentage of chemical formula A is 10% or more compared to the rest of the polymer; [0022] molar ratio of chemical formula A to chemical formulas B-1 and B-2 is 90:10 to 10:90 and [0025] the molar ratio of B-1 to B-2 is 67:33 to 1:99). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park also teaches wherein (a+b) : (c+d) of the copolymer is 0.05 to 0.95 : 0.95 to 0.05, wherein a, b, c, and d are mole fractions of the repeating units (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively, in the copolymer (as described above, a and c are formed in minimal amounts; [0023] claimed b is 10% or more with respect to the sum of the molar numbers of the units in the copolymer; [0022] the molar ratio of Parks A (instant (b)) to Parks B-1 and B-2 (instant (d)) is 90:10 to 10:90, and the ratio of Park’s B-1 to B-2 is 67:33 to 1:99, a such it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the ranges would overlap). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park also teaches wherein e of the copolymer is 0.005 to 0.2, wherein e is a mole fraction of the repeating unit (e) in the copolymer ([0076] 1 to 70 mol%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park also teaches wherein e of the copolymer is 0.01 to 0.1, wherein e is a mole fraction of the repeating unit (e) in the copolymer ([0076] 1 to 70 mol%). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park also teaches wherein in Chemical Formula 5, R5 is substituted or unsubstituted hydrocarbyl having 1 to 4 carbon atoms ([0139]-[0141] n-butyl vinyl ether; chemical formula C; [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park also teaches wherein the copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 to 2,000,000 Da ([0028] 100,000 to 2,000,000).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park also teaches wherein the binder for a secondary battery is a binder for a lithium secondary battery negative electrode ([0001]).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park also teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode and a negative electrode for a secondary battery ([0038]), wherein the negative electrode for a secondary battery comprises: a current collector ([0033]; [0039]); and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the current collector ([0033]; [0039]), and the negative electrode active material layer comprises the binder for a secondary battery of claim 1 and a negative electrode active material ([0033]; [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Park also teaches wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-based active material ([0106] silicon).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Park also teaches wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises a graphite-based active material ([0108]).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Park also teaches wherein a mass ratio between the silicon-based active material and the graphite-based active material is 3 to 97:97 to 3 ([0116] 5:95 to 95:5). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Park also teaches wherein the binder for a secondary battery is comprised at 0.5 to 30 wt % with respect to a weight of the negative electrode active material layer ([0037] binder included in 0.5 to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the active material layer). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US-20200403244-A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Park fails to explicitly teach wherein the copolymer is a linear polymer.
Wang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of copolymer binders for battery electrodes ([0006]). Wang teaches wherein the copolymer is a linear polymer ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified Park and defined the copolymer of Park to be a linear copolymer. Doing so allows for relatively high solubility (Wang [0033]), helping improve the stability of the structure of the electrode (Wang [0032]).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights