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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4,
It is not clear to the examiner whether the range being claimed is for the cross-linked polymer, the acetylene black, or both in combination.
Use of a narrow numerical range (water-soluble crosslinked polymer is 50 parts by mass with respect to a content of 60 parts by mass of acetylene black) that falls within a broader range (total content of the acetylene black and the water-soluble crosslinked polymer is 0.015% by mass) in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. A narrower range or preferred embodiment may also be set forth in another independent claim or in a dependent claim. If stated in a single claim, examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The Examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding claim 10, it is not clear what the Applicant means by “wherein a viscosity of a 10% by mass aqueous solution of the water-soluble crosslinked polymer”. It is not clear what the “10% by mass aqueous solution is compared to. It is not clear if the 10% by mass is compared to (meth)acrylic acid component, or (meth)acrylic acid ester component or the aziridine compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-20200075934-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’
Regarding Claim 1,
Wu teaches a secondary battery binder composition comprising (Wu, “In some embodiments, the negative electrode compositions may also include a binder. Suitable binders may include styrene-butadiene-rubber/sodium carboxymethyl-cellulose, acrylic acid (co)polymers and their alkali metal salts, fluoropolymer/acrylic (co)polymer blends.”, see [0058]): a water-soluble crosslinked polymer obtained by crosslinking a copolymer (Wu, “In various embodiments, the cross-linked polymers present in the cross-linked polymer containing coatings are present in the binder”, see [0058])containing a (meth)acrylic acid component (Wu, “In some embodiments, the cross-linkable vinylic monomers may include vinylic carboxylic acids such as acrylic acid and methacrylic acid”, see [0043]) and a (meth)acrylic acid ester component as constitutional components (Wu, “wherein the crosslinked polymer containing coating comprises a (co)polymer derived from polymerization of one or more vinylic monomers comprising a carboxyl or carboxylate group”, see [0077]) by an aziridine compound (Wu, “In some embodiments, the crosslinking reaction may take place between a carboxylic acid group and an aziridine group”, see [0050]); and water (Wu, “In some embodiments, the components of the aqueous dispersion may be uniformly distributed within the dispersant (e.g., water)”, see [0060])
Regarding Claim 2,
Wu teaches the secondary battery binder composition according to claim 1, wherein the water- soluble crosslinked polymer has a solubility of 10 g/L or more in water at 20°C (The examiner notes that the polymer is the same and therefore the products cannot have mutually exclusive properties see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 3,
Wu teaches the secondary battery binder composition according to claim 1, wherein the (meth)acrylic acid ester component contains a component having a glass transition temperature of 20°C or lower (The examiner notes that the (meth)acrylic acid ester component is the same and therefore the products cannot have mutually exclusive properties see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP 2112.01)
Regarding Claim 5,
Wu teaches the aziridine compound is a compound represented by any of the general formulas (1) to (3) in the formulas, R" represents a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, or an alkyl group, and L" to L"8 represent a single bond or a divalent linking group (Wu “PZ-28 polyfunctional aziridine”, see [0028])(picture below).
PNG
media_image1.png
140
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
412
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6,
Wu teaches the secondary battery binder composition according to claim 5, wherein the aziridine compound is a compound represented by the general formula (1) or (2) (see chemical structure above)
Regarding Claim 8,
Wu teaches the secondary battery binder composition according to claim 1, wherein the (meth)acrylic acid component contains a component having a (meth)acrylic acid salt structure (Wu, “(meth)acrylic acid salt structure”, see [0045]).
Regarding claim 12,
Wu teaches an electrode composition comprising: the secondary battery binder composition according to claim 1; and an active material that allows ions of a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 of the periodic table to be inserted into and released from the active material (Wu, “In some embodiments, the present disclosure relates to electrode compositions suitable for use in secondary electrochemical cells (e.g., lithium ion batteries)”, see [0032]).
Regarding Claim 13,
Wu teaches an electrode sheet comprising: a layer composed of the electrode composition according to claim 12 (Wu, “The electrode slurries were then coated onto copper foil to prepare working electrodes”, see [0166])
Regarding Claim 14,
Wu teaches a secondary battery comprising, in the following order: a positive electrode; a separator; and a negative electrode, wherein at least one of a positive electrode active material layer constituting the positive electrode or a negative electrode active material layer constituting the negative electrode is a layer composed of the electrode composition according to claim 12 (Wu, “In some embodiments, the present disclosure further relates to lithium-ion electrochemical cells. In addition to the above-described negative electrodes, the electrochemical cells may include a positive electrode, an electrolyte, and a separator.”, see [0063]).
Regarding Claim 15,
Wu teaches a production method for an electrode sheet, comprising: forming a film of the electrode composition according to claim 12; and drying the film (Wu, “the coating mixture may be coated onto the current collector foil and then allowed to dry in air or vacuum, and optionally by drying in a heated oven”, see [0072]).
Regarding Claim 16,
Wu teaches a production method for a secondary battery comprising: incorporating an electrode sheet obtained by the production method according to claim 15 into an electrode of a secondary battery (Wu, “The present disclosure further relates to methods of making lithium-ion electrochemical cells. In various embodiments, the method may include providing a negative electrode as described above, providing a positive electrode that includes lithium, and incorporating the negative electrode and the positive electrode into an electrochemical cell comprising a lithium-containing electrolyte”, see [0073])
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200075934-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’
Regarding Claim 4,
Wu teaches the secondary battery binder composition according to claim 1, wherein the water- soluble crosslinked polymer satisfies the following Condition I, <Condition I> in an aqueous dispersion liquid in which a content of the water-soluble crosslinked polymer is 50 parts by mass and a total content of the acetylene black and the water-soluble crosslinked polymer is 0.015% by mass (Wu, “In various embodiments, the cross-linked polymer containing coating may be present in an amount of between 0.01 and 10 wt. %, 0.1 and 10 wt. %, 0.5 and 10 wt. %, or 1 and 10 wt. %, 0.5 and 5 wt. %, or 1 and 5 wt. %,”, see [0051]) (Wu, “In some embodiments, electrochemically active material of the present disclosure (including any conductive or cross-linked polymer containing materials) may be present in a dry form (e.g., as a dry powder). In this regard, the coated materials may be present in a composition that includes less than 20 wt. %, less than 2 wt. %, or less than 0.2 wt. % of liquid (e.g., aqueous or organic liquid solvent or liquid dispersant), based on the total weight of the composition.”, see [0052]) (The examiner notes the conductive particle is optional) with respect to a content of 60 parts by mass of acetylene black (Wu, “acetylene black, furnace black, lamp black, graphite, carbon fibers, and combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the conductive carbon diluents may include carbon nanotubes… based upon the total weight of the electrode coating; or between 0.2 wt. % and 80 wt. %,”, see [0059]), an average particle diameter of particles is 9.0 µm or less (Wu, “In this regard, in some embodiments, the electrochemically active material may be in the form of a dry composition of agglomerate particles having an average particle size of between 0.5 and 20, 0.5 and 10, or 1 and 10 microns.”, see [0054]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5 and 20, 0.5 and 10, or 1 and 10 microns broadly overlaps the claimed range of 9.0 µm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10,
Wu teaches a 10% by mass solution wherein a viscosity crosslinked polymer is 300 mPa-s to 50,000 mPa-s (The examiner notes that the polymer is the same and therefore the products cannot have mutually exclusive properties see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. (MPEP 2112.01).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200075934-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’ in view of (US-20190207257-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hiasa’
Regarding Claim 7,
Wu does not teach wherein the water- soluble crosslinked polymer satisfies the following <Condition II>,<Condition II>a swelling ratio of the water-soluble crosslinked polymer is 1% by mass or more and less than 100% by mass with respect to a mixed solvent obtained by mixing 2 parts by mass of ethyl methyl carbonate with 1 part by mass of ethylene carbonate.
Hiasa teaches the following a swelling ratio of the water-soluble crosslinked polymer is 1% by mass or more and less than 100% by mass with respect to a mixed solvent obtained by mixing 2 parts by mass of ethyl methyl carbonate with 1 part by mass of ethylene carbonate (Hiasa, “(ethylene carbonate):(ethyl methyl carbonate)=50:50”, see [0289]) (Hiasa, see Table, swelling state, see [0300]).
Hiasa teaches that this solvent prevents the swelling of the battery can be prevented (Hiasa, “
Particularly, the solvent preferably includes at least one compound selected from ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate and the like. This is because a high battery capacity, excellent cycle characteristics, excellent storage properties and the like can be achieved.”, see [0089])
Wu and Hiasa are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrolyte compositions.
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 electrolyte as taught in Wu with the composition as taught in Hiasa in order to improve the cycling characteristics of the battery.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200075934-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’ in view of (US-20220181631-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Murase’
Regarding Claim 11,
Wu does not teach wherein a weight- average molecular weight of the copolymer is 100,000 or more.
Murase teaches wherein a weight- average molecular weight of the copolymer is 100,000 or more (Murase, “The weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of the polymer A is required to be 700,000 or more, and is preferably 1,000,000 or more”, see [0079]).
Murase teaches that this ranges of the molecular weight can achieve a more uniform electrode layer and improve peel strength (Murase, “On the other hand, through the weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of the polymer A being not more than any of the upper limits set forth above, it is possible to achieve a more uniform electrode mixed material layer thickness and to form an electrode mixed material layer having excellent peel strength because a slurry composition obtained using the binder composition is not excessively thickened.”, see [0079]).
Wu and Murase are analogous as they are both of the same field of polymers for binder compositions.
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 modified Wu with Murase’s teachings of the molecular weight of the polymer to be in the range which is ideal for uniform distribution and peel strength.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200075934-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wu’ in view of (US-20220173462-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sasaki’
Regarding Claim 9,
Wu does not teach wherein the (meth)acrylic acid salt structure has a counterion derived from a polyvalent amine.
Sasaki teaches wherein the (meth)acrylic acid salt structure has a counterion derived from a polyvalent amine (Sasaki, “For example, the cationic polymer is preferably polyethyleneimine, an ion polymer complex formed of a polymer having polyethyleneimine and a carboxylic acid, primary amine-grafted acrylic resins obtained by graft-polymerizing a primary amine with an acrylic main backbone, polyallylamine or a derivative thereof, or aminated phenol. The anionic polymer is preferably poly (meth)acrylic acid or a salt thereof”, see [0149]).
Sasaki teaches that this counterion forms a corrosions resistant film which prevents delaminated between film layers (Sasaki, “The corrosion-resistant film exhibits the effects of preventing delamination between the barrier layer (e.g. an aluminum alloy foil)”, see [0146])
Wu and Sasaki are analogous as they are both of the same field of polymer coatings for battery materials.
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 composition as taught in Wu with the counterion co-polymer as taught in Sasaki in order to create a corrosion-resistance film which can prevent delamination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752