DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/225,862, filed 7/25/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/081026, filed 3/15/2022, which claims priority to Chinese application CN2021102765718, filed 3/15/2021.
Claims 1-19 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0346618 A1: This reference teaches an active material for a battery, wherein the active material comprises a polyvinylamine (paragraph [0005]).
Pelton (Langmuir, 2014, 30, 15373-15383): This reference teaches multiple polyvinylamine copolymers.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “a current collector” twice in lines 1-2. Please delete the repeated limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-8 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the repeating unit shown in Formula 2 is derived from a hydrophilic monomer; the repeating unit shown in Formula 3 is derived from a hydrophobic monomer; and the repeating unit shown in Formula 4 is derived from an amphiphilic monomer.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what structure the “derived from” terminology imparts to the claimed monomers.
Claims 4-6 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 3.
Claim 4 is further indefinite, because all of the hydrophilic monomers recited in Claim 4 do not have a structure that meets any of the structures in Claim 2, because they each include “R” groups that are not organic groups (i.e. are hydrogen).
Claim 5 is further indefinite, because all of the hydrophobic monomers recited in Claim 5 do not have a structure that meets any of the structures in Claim 2, because they each include “R” groups that are not organic groups (i.e. are hydrogen).
Claim 6 is further indefinite, because all of the amphiphilic monomers recited in Claim 6 do not have a structure that meets any of the structures in Claim 2, because they each include “R” groups that are not organic groups (i.e. are hydrogen).
Claim 7 depends on Claim 2, which requires that the polymer further comprises a second type of repeating unit (i.e. is a copolymer).
Therefore, the recitation in Claim 7 that “the polymer is a homopolymer” is indefinite, because this is contradictory to the limitations of Claim 2.
Claim 8 is indefinite, because of its dependence on Claim 7.
Claim 8 is further indefinite, because it recites “wherein the repeating unit shown in Formula 2 accounts for 0 to 65mol% of total moles of the copolymer; and/or the repeating unit shown in Formula 3 accounts for 0 to 20mol% of the total moles of the copolymer; and/or, the repeating unit shown in Formula 4 accounts for 0 to 1mol% of the total moles of the copolymer.” These limitations suggest that a polymer comprising 0 mol% of the monomers of Formulas 2, 3, or 4 would meet the limitations of Claim 8. This is indefinite, because Claim 8 depends on Claim 2, which requires that the polymer further comprises one of Formulas 2, 3, or 4.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arikawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0356708 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Arikawa teaches a binder, wherein the binder comprises at least one polymer (i.e. polymer b1, which is taught to be homopolymer of vinylamine in paragraph [0094]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises a repeating unit shown in Formula 1, wherein, R1, R2, R3 are each hydrogen.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the polymer is a homopolymer formed by the repeating unit shown in Formula 1.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the repeating unit shown in Formula 2 accounts for 0 mol% of total moles of the copolymer; and/or the repeating unit shown in Formula 3 accounts for 0 mol% of the total moles of the copolymer; and/or, the repeating unit shown in Formula 4 accounts for 0 mol% of the total moles of the copolymer.
Alternatively, Claim 8 merely modifies an optional limitation of Claim 7, i.e. wherein the polymer is a copolymer. Therefore, the teachings of Arikawa meet the limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arikawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0356708 A1), as evidenced by Shangguan, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0269623 A1), and Maeda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0221103 A1).
In reference to Claim 11, Arikawa teaches that the binder is polyvinylamine, as described above.
Evidentiary reference Shangguan teaches that polyvinylamine has a glass transition temperature between 120-130 °C (paragraph [0004]).
Evidentiary reference Maeda teaches that polyvinylamine has a decomposition temperature in the range of 300-450 °C (paragraph [0068]).
Further, paragraphs [0126], [0132], [0135], and [0138] of the instant specification teach a variety of polyvinylamine copolymers that have decomposition temperatures within the range required by Claim 11.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that there is reasonable basis to conclude that the polyvinylamine of Arikawa has a decomposition temperature of 320 to 400°C, and a glass transition temperature of 120 to 200°C.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leonard, Jr., et al. (U.S. Patent 4,238,579).
In reference to Claim 1, Leonard teaches a binder (i.e. a polymer), wherein the binder comprises at least one polymer (i.e. the styrene-vinylamine copolymer shown in Leonard, Claim 1).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises a repeating unit shown in Formula 1, wherein, R1, R2, R3 are each hydrogen (i.e. the vinylamine monomer).
It is noted that the only positively recited component of the “binder” of Claim 1 is the polymer of Claim 1. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the polymer of Leonard meets the limitations of the “binder” of Claim 1.
In reference to Claim 2, it is noted that Claim 2 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
As described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Leonard teaches a styrene-vinylamine copolymer (shown in Leonard, Claim 1).
It is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the polymer further comprises at least one of a repeating unit shown in Formula 3, wherein R5 is a hydrophobic group, each R is the same or different, and is independently selected from an organic group; and * is a connecting end.
It is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the hydrophobic monomer comprises styrene.
It is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the polymer is a copolymer formed by the repeating unit shown in Formula 1 with the repeating unit shown in Formula 3.
In reference to Claims 3 and 4, Claims 3 and 4 only modify optional limitations of Claim 2. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Leonard teaches these limitations.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0287308 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Okada teaches a binder (paragraphs [0452]-[0471]).
The binder of Okada comprises at least one polymer (corresponding to component α, described in paragraph [0454] as a copolymer of monomers (21) and (22) shown in paragraph [0459]).
The polymer comprises a repeating unit shown in Formula 1 (i.e. a repeating unit derived from a vinyl amine monomer, paragraphs [0467] and [0459]), wherein R1, R2, R3 are all hydrogen; and * is a connecting end.
In reference to Claim 2, it is noted that Claim 2 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the claim limitations.
Okada teaches that the polymer further comprises at least one of a repeating unit shown in Formula 2, wherein, R4 is a hydrophilic group.
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the repeating unit shown in Formula 2 is derived from a hydrophilic monomer.
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the polymer is a copolymer formed by the repeating unit shown in Formula 1 with the repeating unit shown in Formula 2.
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.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arikawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0356708 A1).
In reference to Claim 9, Arikawa teaches that the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 500-1,000,000 (paragraph [0092]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 400,000 to 10,000,000.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 400,000 to 10,000,000 overlaps with the taught range of 500-1,000,000.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 800,000 to 3,000,000.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 800,000 to 3,000,000 overlaps with the taught range of 500-1,000,000.
Claims 8-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0287308 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, Okada teaches that the repeating unit shown in Formula 2 accounts for 0.1-99.9 mol% of the polymer (paragraph [0471]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the repeating unit shown in Formula 2 accounts for 0 to 65 mol% of total moles of the copolymer.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 0 to 65 mol% overlaps with the taught range of 0.1-99.9 mol%.
In reference to Claim 9, Okada teaches that the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 5000-10,000,000 (paragraph [0491]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 400,000 to 10,000,000.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 400,000 to 10,000,000 lies within the taught range of 5000-10,000,000.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 800,000 to 3,000,000.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 800,000 to 3,000,000 lies within the taught range of 5000-10,000,000.
In reference to Claims 12-13, Okada is silent regarding the specific solid content of the binder in the applied embodiment.
However, he teaches that the amount of binder resin in the total electrode-forming slurry of his invention should be between 0.01-15%, relative to the total solids in the slurry, in order to balance the adhesive property of the electrode slurry while still balancing the conductivity of the electrode composition (paragraph [0168]).
He further teaches that the amount of solvent in the electrode-forming slurry of his invention is 5-50% by mass, in order to use the minimum amount of solvent to keep the binder dissolved, while still balancing the viscosity of the electrode composition (paragraph [0178]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have tuned the relative amounts of binder resin and solvent in the electrode slurry, in order to optimize the adhesive properties and conductivity of the electrode formed by the slurry, while using the minimum amount of solvent to keep the binder dissolved and have acceptable slurry viscosity.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed solid contents of the binder from 0.1 to 10 wt% (per Claim 12), and 0.3 to 5 wt% (per Claim 13), without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 14, Okada is silent regarding the specific viscosity of the binder. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach that the viscosity of the binder meets the limitations of Claim 14.
However, he teaches that the viscosity of the binder is improved by increasing the content of the monomer of Formula (22) within the copolymer (paragraph [0471]) while the binding of the active material to the current collector and the electrode flexibility are improved by increasing the monomer of Formula (21) within the copolymer (paragraph [0463]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the composition of the binder to optimize its viscosity, while also balancing this consideration with maintaining sufficient adhesion to the electrode.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the viscosity recited in Claim 14, without undue experimentation.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the viscosity recited in Claim 15, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 16, Okada does not teach that the binder necessarily has a pH of 5 to 7.
However, he teaches that the binder polymer can be suitably disposed in a neutral aqueous solution (paragraph [0517]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the binder to be in a neutral (i.e. pH 7) aqueous solution, because he teaches that the binder polymers may be suitably disposed in a neutral aqueous solution.
Disposing the binder in a neutral (i.e. pH 7) aqueous solution teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the binder has a pH of 5-7.
In reference to Claim 17, Okada is silent regarding the specific peeling strength of the binder having the composition of the applied embodiment. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach that the peel strength of the binder meets the limitations of Claim 17.
However, he teaches that the binding of the active material to the current collector and the electrode flexibility are improved by increasing the monomer of Formula (21) within the copolymer (paragraph [0463]), while the viscosity of the binder is improved by increasing the content of the monomer of Formula (22) within the copolymer (paragraph [0471]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the composition of the binder to optimize its viscosity, while also balancing this consideration with maintaining sufficient adhesion to the electrode.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the peeling strength recited in Claim 17, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 18, Okada teaches an electrode piece (paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
Okada teaches that the electrode piece comprises a current collector (paragraph [0065]) and a and an active material layer located on a surface of at least one side of the current collector (paragraph [0065]).
Okada teaches that the active material layer comprises a binder (paragraph [0064]).
Okada does not teach that the binder is necessarily the binder of the embodiment applied above.
However, the binder taught in paragraphs [0452]-[0471] is one of several binders suitable for use in the electrode slurries of his invention.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the binder of the embodiment described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, because Okada teaches that this is one of several binders suitable for use in the electrodes of his invention.
Using the binder of the embodiment described in the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the electrode piece comprises the binder according to Claim 1.
Okada does not teach that the binder is necessarily present at 0.5-5 wt% of the total mass of the active material layer.
However, he teaches that the binder should make up 0.1-15 wt% of the total solids in an electrode composition, in order to balance the adhesive property of the electrode while still balancing the conductivity of the electrode composition (paragraph [0168]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included the binder at 0.1-15 wt% of the electrode material layer, in order to balance the adhesive property of the electrode while still balancing the conductivity of the electrode composition (paragraph [0168]).
Including the binder at 0.1-15 wt% of the electrode material layer teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein an addition amount of the binder accounts for 0.5 to 5wt% of a total mass 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. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 0.5 to 5wt% lies within the taught range of 0.1-15 wt%.
In reference to Claim 19, Okada teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising the electrode piece according to claim 18 (paragraphs [0170], [0209]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm 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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721