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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received July 27, 2026:
Claim 3 has been canceled as per Applicant’s request.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are pending.
The previous prior art rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 19, 1016 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 5 the following claim interpretation is applied – The claim only defines a polyacrylic acid-based copolymer but does not require the presence of the polyacrylic acid-based copolymer.
Regarding claim 12, “DC-IR” is an art recognized term for “direct current-internal resistance”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0190328 / WO 2020/195334 A1 (Kuroda et al. – note: both publications apply with different dates; the US document is relied upon as the translation for the WO document, as both documents pertain to the same PCT) in view of US 2023/0343920 (Sotome) and US 2016/0233512 (Park ‘512).
As to claim 1, Kuroda et al teach an anode (negative electrode) for a secondary battery comprising:
an anode current collector and an anode mixture layer disposed on at least one surface of the anode current collector (para 0066),
wherein the anode mixture layer includes a silicon-based active material (Si-containing material) (para 0071), an acrylate-based binder (i.e. polyacrylic acid), and a rubber-based binder (i.e. styrene-butadiene rubber) (combination set forth; para 0069).
Kuroda et al. do not teach (a) the rubber-based binder includes an acrylate-based monomer, wherein a content ratio of the acrylate-based monomer in the rubber-based binder is greater than 4 mol% and less than 80 mol% or (b) an RB value according to Equation 1 below is greater than 1.33 and less than 20:
[Equation 1]
RB = CA/CR
in Equation 1, RB is a weight-based content ratio of the acrylate-based binder and the rubber-based binder, CA is a content (wt%) of the acrylate-based binder in the anode mixture layer, and CR is a content (wt%) of the rubber-based binder in the anode mixture layer.
With respect to (a), Sotome, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an anode, recognizing silicon active material (para 0025), with a mixture of binders one serving as a thickener, and the other being a styrene-butadiene rubber (para 0028-0029). Specifically, in the styrene-butadiene rubber, a copolymer is formed with a monomer other than styrene and butadiene, specifically meth(acrylate) in less than 50 mol% is embodied (para 0030). The substitution of one styrene-butadiene rubber (undisclosed molar components, as in Kuroda et al.) with another styrene-butadiene rubber (having less than 50% meth-acrylate monomer) would yield the predictable result of acting as binders for silicon-containing anodes, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) substitute one styrene-butadiene rubber (undisclosed molar components) with another styrene-butadiene rubber (having less than 50% meth-acrylate monomer), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as binders for silicon-containing anodes, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). (Note: The styrene butadiene rubber having a methacrylate monomer in less than 50%, as set forth in the combination above, overlaps the claimed range (greater than 4 mol% and less than 80 mol%) and thus renders the claimed range obvious. “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)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).)
With respect to (b): Sotome teaches of adding a first binder (thickener) in an amount of 0.3-3 mass% (para 0028-0029) and a second binder (styrene butadiene rubber) in 0.1-8 mass% (para 0030-0032). This would yield a ratio of the thickener amount to the rubber amount that overlaps the claimed range (i.e. at the minimum values, the ratio is 3 (0.3/0.1)). The substitution of one mixture of binders (no amounts specified, as in Kuroda et al.) with another mixture of binders (having a ratio of 3 (regarding a thickener binder and a styrene-butadiene rubber, as in Sotome) would yield the predictable result of acting as binders for silicon-containing anodes, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) substitute one mixture of binders (no amounts specified) with mixture of binders (having a ratio of 3 (regarding a thickener binder and a styrene-butadiene rubber), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as binders for silicon-containing anodes, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
At this point, it is noted that the combination does not render obvious that the thickener is the acrylate-based binder.
However, Park ‘512 teaches the use of thickeners including carboxymethylcellulose and polyacrylic acids (para 0062). The substitution of one thickener binder (carboxymethylcellulose, as in both Sotome and Park ‘512) with another thickener binder (as in Kuroda et al. and Park ‘512) would yield the predictable result of acting as thickeners/binders for silicon-containing anodes, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) substitute one mixture of thickener binder (carboxymethylcellulose) with another thickener binder (polyacrylic acid), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as thickener binders for silicon-containing anodes, as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). Accordingly, with the combination includes RB = 3 fits the prior art (as set forth above)
As to claim 2, the content ratio of the acrylate-based monomer in the rubber-based binder is 10 to 50 mol% would be rendered obvious by the combination of Kuroda et al. and Sotome et al.). The combination renders obvious the styrene butadiene rubber having a methacrylate monomer in less than 50% (as set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), which overlaps the claimed range (10-50 mol%) and thus renders the claimed range obvious. “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)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).)
As to claim 4, the combination renders obvious RB = 3, which renders obvious the claimed invention (of RB being from 1.67 to 10). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 5, Kuroda et al. teach the acrylate-based binder comprises polyacrylic acid (PAA), a polyacrylic acid-based copolymer, or a combination thereof (polyacrylic acid; para 0069),
wherein the polyacrylic acid-based copolymer is a copolymer of polyacrylic acid (PAA) and any one selected from polyacrylamide, polyimide (PI), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and combinations thereof (met by having polyacrylic acid, wherein the copolymer is not required).
As to claim 6, Kuroda et al. teach the rubber-based binder comprises a styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (para 0069).
As to claim 7, Sotome, relied upon to render obvious the acrylate-based monomer teaches of methacrylate (para 0030). (See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
Although methacrylate is not specifically one selected from alkyl acrylate having an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; alkyl methacrylate having an alkyl group of 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and combinations thereof (as the methacrylate is not further modified with an alkyl group). However, the difference is merely an alkyl group, and thus the taught compound has a close structure to that claimed, would have similar properties, such that obviousness is achieved. See MPEP 2144.09(I)/(II).
As to claim 8, Kuroda et al. teach the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from SiOx (0 < x < 2), metal-doped SiOx (0 < x < 2), SiC, and Si (Si particles, SiOx (0 < x < 2)) (para 0028-0029).
As to claim 11, Kuroda et al. teach a lithium secondary battery (comprising the anode of claim 1 (fig. 1; para 0088-0090). The anode of claim 1 has been set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. in view of Sotome and Park ‘512, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2010/0129704 (Luo et al.)
As to claim 9, Kuroda et al. do not teach wherein adhesive force between the anode current collector and the anode mixture layer is 0.25 N/18 mm or more.
However, Luo et al. shows that adhesive force is/are result effective variable(s), as Luo generally teaches that a small amount of adhesive (less adhesive force) allows for increase of specific capacity of the battery (by allowing for more active material), while high binding force (more adhesive force) allows enhanced cycling performance (para 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have adhesive force between the anode current collector and the anode mixture layer is 0.25 N/18 mm or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. in view of Sotome and Park ‘512, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2023/0420665 (Park ‘665).
As to claim 10, Kuroda et al. do not teach a VD value according to Equation 2 below is less than 35%:
[Equation 2]
VD = (T2 – T1) / (T1 – T0) x 100
in Equation 2, VD is a volumetric expansion rate (%) of the anode, T0 is a thickness of the anode current collector, T1 is a thickness of the anode before charging the secondary battery (SOC 0), and T2 is a thickness of the anode after charging the secondary battery (SOC 100).
However, Park ‘665 teach that volumetric expansion in general is a result effective variable that should be minimized (i.e. VD is as close as possible to 0%), as Park ’665 generally teaches that having a binder capable of holding a volume expansion rate during the charging and discharging process with silicon-containing active material allows for high capacity and exce3llant output characteristic in charging and discharging without lowering the performance of the electrode (para 0066). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a VD value according below is less than 35% (as defined in equation 2; see above), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. in view of Sotome and Kim ‘512, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of US 2012/0237826 (Kim et al.).
As to claim 12, Kuroda et al. do not teach wherein a DC-IR resistance value is 1.05 mΩ or less.
However, Park et al. teach that resistance in general (related to DC-IR resistance value) is a result effective variable, as smaller resistivity improves power of the battery (table 1; para 0105). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a DC-IR resistance value is 1.05 mΩ or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed RB value (greater than 1.33 and less than 20) provides unexpected results regarding improving resistance characteristics and adhesive fore and suppressing swelling (inventive examples 3-8 compared to inventive examples 9 to 12 in table 1 – specifically examples having RB of 20 have high DC-IR value (inferior effect for improving battery resistance characteristics) and examples having Rb of 1.33have relatively high volumetric expansion rate of the anode).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The burden to show unexpected results has not been met. For non-limiting example, MPEP 716.02(b) requires that Applicant’s establish that the results are unexpected and significant, which has not been accomplished, as all values regarding adhesive force, VD and DC-IR of examples 9-12 are similar to inventive examples 3-8 (i.e. inventive examples 10 and 12 (outside of the claimed range) display adhesive force within range displayed by that of inventive examples 3-8, while examples 9 and 12 (outside of the claimed range) have similar adhesive force as that of inventive examples 3-8 (i.e. inventive example 7 has an adhesive force of 0.25, while inventive example 9 has an adhesive force of 0.22, which is a 0.03 difference (12%); a greater difference exists within the examples in the claimed range (0.34 of inventive example 6 and 0.25 of inventive example 7, a 0.09 (25.5%)). No explanation has been provided as to how/why the differences of the examples in the claimed range and outside of the claimed range is unexpected and significant. Similarly, regarding VD, inventive examples 9-12 (outside of the claimed range) have values between 32.6 and 36.0, while inventive examples 3-8 (within claimed range) have values between 32.6 and 34.6, which substantially overlaps (shows similarity). Again, no explanation has been provided as to how/why the differences of the examples in the claimed range and outside of the claimed range is unexpected and significant. Lastly, DC-IR inventive examples 9-12 (outside of the claimed range) have values between 0.90 and 1.13, while inventive examples 3-8 (within claimed range) have values between 0.89 and 1.05, which substantially overlaps (shows similarity). Again, no explanation has been provided as to how/why the differences of the examples in the claimed range and outside of the claimed range is unexpected and significant. Thus, no results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention is shown (required by MPEP 716.02(d)). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that calculating Rb requires an acrylate-based binder, while Sotome’s first binder is a cellulose-based compound, and thus while the range (of the first binder and second binder) overlaps, the claim is presided on a content ratio of the acrylate-base binder to the rubber-based binder, wherein the reliance on Park ‘512 (setting forth equivalents of carboxymethyl cellulose and polyacrylic acids) is hindsight (due to the differences in the distinct compounds).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the argument towards Sotome, this argument is piecemeal analysis that fails to take the combination into account. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Regarding the combination of Park ‘512, no hindsight has been relied upon, as only the prior art is relied upon. Additionally, this argument does not negate the fact that the primary reference (Kuroda et al.) recognizes both an acrylate-based binder (polyacrylic acid) and a rubber-based binder (combination set forth; para 0069), further supporting the obviousness shown in Sotome and Park ‘512. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the ratio range derivable from the prior art is 0.0375 to 30, which is broader than the exemplification that overlaps the claimed range with no specific motivation regarding the claimed range (which has unexpected results).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. “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)” See MPEP §2144.05(I). Thus, the analysis applied in the rejection is supported by the MPEP. No unexpected results have been established (argued in full above). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights