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
The amendments filed on February 3, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 17, 2025 have been received and entered. Claim 1 was amended and claims 8-15 were added.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 20140212728 A1) in view of Kaihatsu, N. (WO 2015029835 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1 rejection, the applicant argues (see page 6-8) that Kaneda in view of Kaihatsu fails to teach the limitation “wherein the inner wall surface of the accommodating part is coated with a layer comprising a silane coupling agent or a fluororesin”. Applicant believes that Kaihatsu teaches a pouch-type container where the sheet material itself (e.g., polypropylene or polyethylene) provides the contact angle. Kaihatsu relies on the bulk material properties of the sheet. It does not appear to show a multi-layer structure (container wall with a silane/fluoro resin coating).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Upon further consideration, new ground of rejection have been presented under Nakamura et al. (JP 2015065141 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Kose et al. (JP 2017220326 A, see machine translation for citation) and Brown (US 20120214893 A1).
Regarding new independent claim 9, the applicant argues (see page 8-10) that the currently claimed mineral oil defoamer range (0.02 to 0.3 parts by mass) is a critical, result-effective variable that is not taught or suggested by the broad disclosure of Kaneda. Citing paragraph 0048 of the Specification, it is taught that in a situation in which the content of the defoamer is less than 0.02 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the binder, formation of aggregates in the binder composition after long-term storage cannot be sufficiently inhibited, and adhesiveness of a functional layer decreases. On the other hand, adhesiveness of a functional layer also decreases in a situation in which the content of the defoamer is more than 0.3 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the binder.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed on February 3, 2026, with respect to new independent claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2015065141 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Kose et al. (JP 2017220326 A, see machine translation for citation) and Brown (US 20120214893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a binder composition for battery electrodes, characterized by containing (A) a polymer comprising a (meth)acrylic monomer and (B) a structural unit derived from a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer (binders), and (C) a silicone-based and/or mineral oil-based defoaming agent [0009]. The binder of the present invention is taught to be a water based binder [0008 and 0041]. The content of the polymer in the binder composition of the present invention is preferably 10-60% by weight [0041]. The amount of defoaming agent added is preferably 0.005 to 0.3 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of polymer [0027]. From the previous description, taking the extreme values for the polymer and defoaming agent, the amount of the defoamer will be between 0.05-18 parts by weight of the total binder weight, which overlaps the claimed range.
Nakamura is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a binder product for a secondary battery comprising a binder composition containing a binder, a defoamer and water, wherein the content of the defoamer can be calculated to overlap 0.02-0.3 by mass per 100 parts by mass of the binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the defoaming agent calculated ranges disclosed by Nakamura because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Nakamura. However, Nakamura teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, it is taught that the binder composition that is accommodated in the accommodating part of the container has a surface tension of not less than 20 mN/m and not more than 60 mN/m. Moreover, the binder composition contains at least a binder, a defoamer, and water and may optionally contain one or more selected from the group consisting of a preservative, an emulsifier, a wetting agent, and other components [0029]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the binder composition surface tension, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Nakamura does not teach the features “a container having an accommodating part; and a binder composition accommodated in an internal space of the accommodating part, wherein an inner wall surface of the accommodating part has a contact angle with water of 80° or more wherein the inner wall surface of the accommodating part is coated with a layer comprising a silane coupling agent or a fluororesin”.
Kose teaches a method for storing binder compositions energy storage device electrodes [0001 and 0010]. The binder of the present invention is an aqueous binder comprising at least one polymer component (A) which serves as a binder [0022]. The binder composition is stored in a container, which may be made of glass, metal or resin [0067]. It is taught that with the storage method of Kose the storage stability of its aqueous binder composition is improved, making it possible to provide an aqueous binder composition of stable quality at any time, which results in an improved electrode yield [0019].
Brown teaches hydrophobic coating compositions for coating a surface of laboratory vessels and other articles [0002 and 0030]. According to some embodiments the coating compositions can include fluorinated perfluorinated hardenable resins [0031]. It is taught that the resulting surfaces are extremely hydrophobic and highly resistant to removal by weathering and/or solvents [0031].
Kose is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a binder product for a secondary battery comprising a container and a binder accommodated in the container, wherein the binder composition comprises a binder and water.
Brown is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely hydrophobic coating compositions for coating a surface of laboratory vessels and other articles. Despite Brown does not teach a binder composition, its teachings are applicable to binder compositions containers and/or storages.
From Kose and Brown teachings it is possible to prepare a container having an accommodating part made of glass, steel or resin, and having its inner surface coated with a composition comprising fluororesin, to store/contain the binder composition of Nakamura.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura’s invention to provide “a container having an accommodating part; and a binder composition accommodated in an internal space of the accommodating part, wherein the inner wall surface of the accommodating part is coated with a layer comprising a silane coupling agent or a fluororesin”, because Kose teaches regarding the container feature that storage stability of the aqueous binder composition can be improved, making it possible to provide an aqueous binder composition of stable quality at any time, which results in an improved electrode yield. In addition Brown teaches regarding the fluororesin coating feature that the resulting surfaces are extremely hydrophobic and highly resistant to removal by weathering and/or solvents.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Nakamura in view of Kose and Brown. However, from Kose and Brown teachings it is possible to prepare a container having an accommodating part made of glass, steel or resin, and having its inner surface coated with a composition comprising fluororesin, to store/contain the binder composition of Nakamura. According to the original specification, in the accommodating part of the container, the contact angle with water of the inner wall surface is required to be 80° or more, and it can be adjusted by changing the material of the accommodating part (glass, metal or resin) or performing hydrophobization treatment of the inner wall surface of the accommodating part which is preferably coated by either or both of a layer formed of a silane coupling agent and a layer (coating) formed of a fluororesin [0022-0024]. From Example 7, a container made of polyethylene (resin) and coated with a fluororesin have an contact angle of 110° [0022, 0088 and Table 1]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed contact angle with water would expectedly be achieved by a container as taught by Kose and Brown for store the binder composition of Nakamura. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura, Kose and Brown teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Nakamura further teaches that its binder composition comprises a (meth)acrylic monomer (A) which includes a (meth)acrylate monomer (A-1) having an hydroxyl group, wherein alkylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate is mentioned as an example [0011-0013].
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura, Kose and Brown teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Nakamura further teaches that its binder composition comprises a (meth)acrylic monomer (A) which includes a (meth)acrylate monomer (A-1) having an hydroxyl group, wherein alkylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate is mentioned as an example [0011-0013]. As discussed for claim 1, the content of the polymer in the binder composition of the present invention is preferably 10-60% by weight [0041]. It is further taught that in the polymer, the ratio of monomers having hydroxyl groups (A-1) is 1 to 99.9% by weight [0024]. Taking the extreme values for the content of the polymer in the binder and the ratio of monomers having hydroxyl groups (A-1), “a total of proportional content of the hydroxyalkyl group containing monomer unit in the binder” would be between 0.01-59.94% by weight, which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the “total of proportional content of the hydroxyalkyl group containing monomer unit” calculated range from Nakamura’s teachings because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura, Kose and Brown teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. As discussed for claim 1, the content of the polymer in the binder composition of the present invention is preferably 10-60% by weight [0041]. Nakamura further teaches that the amount of its defoaming agent is preferably 0.005 to 0.3 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of polymer [0027]. From these teachings and taking the extreme values of the taught polymer and defoaming agent content, “a solid content concentration” on the binder can be calculated to be 10.05-78% by weight, which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the “solid content concentration” calculated from Nakamura’s teachings because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Nakamura, Kose and Brown teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, Nakamura teaches that its defoaming agent is a mineral oil-based based one, from which the limitations of claims 7 and 8 are met [0011].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2015065141 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Kose et al. (JP 2017220326 A, see machine translation for citation) and Brown (US 20120214893 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kaneda (US 20140212728 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura, Kose and Brown teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the binder composition further contains a preservative and has a content of the preservative of not less than 0.01 parts by mass and not more than 0.5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the binder”.
Kaneda teaches a binder for a secondary battery slurry including a polymer with a hydrophilic group (binder) dispersed in a liquid media (water or aqueous solvents) [0141, 0142 and 0158]. An antifoaming agent may be added to the binder in an amount of 10 wt.% or less of the total solid content [0189]. Kaneda further teaches that its binder composition can include an isothiazoline-based compound (preservative) which can be included in 10 mass % or less of the total solid content [0139 and 0189]. It is taught that the inclusion of the isothiazoline-based compound prevents propagation of fungi; thus, generation of unusual odor in slurry for a secondary batteries for forming a porous membrane and thickening of said slurry can be prevented, leading to an excellent long-term storage stability [0170].
Kaneda is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a binder product for a secondary battery containing a binder, a defoamer, and water, wherein the defoamer content overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binder composition of Nakamura, Kose and Brown to include “a preservative”, because Kaneda teaches that with the inclusion of the isothiazoline-based compound (preservative) propagation of fungi can be prevented; thus, generation of unusual odor in slurry for a secondary batteries for forming a porous membrane and thickening of said slurry can be prevented, leading to an excellent long-term storage stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the isothiazoline-based compound (preservative) range disclosed by Kaneda because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2015065141 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Kose et al. (JP 2017220326 A, see machine translation for citation) and Brown (US 20120214893 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kaihatsu, N. (WO 2015029835 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura, Kose and Brown teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein, relative to internal capacity of the container, a capacity ratio of a vacant part determined by subtracting capacity occupied by the binder composition in the container from the internal capacity of the container is 10 volume% or less”.
Kaihatsu teaches a method for storing an aqueous binder composition for a lithium secondary battery having a binder among other materials [0010, 0011 and 0013]. The binder composition is filled into the pouch-shaped container having a contact angle between the sheet material inside the pouch-type container and water of 80° or more [0122]. The pouch-type container must be filled to 50 to 100% of its maximum capacity, preferably 90 to 100% and more preferably 95 to 100% [0126], which overlaps the claimed range.
Kaihatsu is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a binder product for a secondary battery comprising: a container having an accommodating part; and a binder composition accommodated in an internal space of the accommodating part, wherein an inner wall surface of the accommodating part has a contact angle with water of 80o or more and the binder composition contains a binder and water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the pouch-type container filled volume range disclosed by Kaihatsu because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a binder product for a secondary battery comprising: a container having an accommodating part; and a binder composition accommodated in an internal space of the accommodating part, wherein an inner wall surface of the accommodating part has a contact angle with water of 80° or more, the binder composition contains a binder, a mineral oil defoamer, and water and has a content of the mineral oil defoamer of not less than 0.02 parts by mass and not more than 0.3 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the binder, and the binder composition has a surface tension of not less than 20 mN/m and not more than 60 mN/m.
Nakamura et al. (JP 2015065141 A, see machine translation for citation) is considered to be the closest prior art to independent claim 9. Nakamura teaches a binder composition for battery electrodes, characterized by containing (A) a polymer comprising a (meth)acrylic monomer and (B) a structural unit derived from a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer (binders), and (C) a silicone-based and/or mineral oil-based defoaming agent [0009]. The binder of the present invention is taught to be a water based binder [0008 and 0041]. The content of the polymer in the binder composition of the present invention is preferably 10-60% by weight [0041]. The amount of defoaming agent added is preferably 0.005 to 0.3 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of polymer [0027]. From the previous description, taking the extreme values for the polymer and defoaming agent, the amount of the defoamer will be between 0.05-18 parts by weight of the total binder weight, which overlaps the claimed range.
However Nakamura does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the criticality of the claimed mineral oil defoamer range (0.02 to 0.3 parts by mass) as argued above. To the contrary, Nakamura teaches that if the amount added exceeds 1 part by weight [of the polymer], which would result in a defoaming agent content higher that the calculated above, it may adversely affect the bonding properties and battery characteristics [0027]. Nakamura further teaches that its binder composition exhibits good dispersibility of each component during electrode slurry preparation, improving the applicability of the slurry (areas where bubbles remain after coating are defects), and suppressing the retention of air bubbles on the electrode [0010].
Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the binder composition of Nakamura to limit the mineral oil defoamer range to 0.02-0.3 parts by mass, because its binder composition already exhibits good dispersibility of each component during electrode slurry preparation and improves the applicability of the slurry.
Kaneda (US 20140212728 A1) can be considered relevant prior art to independent claim 9. Kaneda teaches a binder for a secondary battery slurry including a polymer with a hydrophilic group (binder) dispersed in a liquid media (water or aqueous solvents) [0141, 0142 and 0158]. An antifoaming agent may be added to the binder in an amount of 10 wt.% or less of the total solid content [0189]. Kaneda further teaches that its binder composition can include an isothiazoline-based compound (preservative) which can be included in 10 mass % or less of the total solid content [0139 and 0189].
However Kaneda does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the criticality of the claimed mineral oil defoamer range (0.02 to 0.3 parts by mass) as argued above. To the contrary, Kaneda teaches that the antifoaming agent, among other possible additives, are added within a range in which battery characteristics are not affected [0189].
Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the binder composition of Kaneda or modify the taught composition of Nakamura to limit the mineral oil defoamer range to 0.02-0.3 parts by mass, because the antifoaming agent of Kaneda’s binder, among other possible additives, is already within a range in which battery characteristics are not affected.
Sasaki et al (JP 2010092719 A, see machine translation for citation) can be considered relevant prior art to independent claim 9. Sasaki teaches a binder resin employable on non-aqueous electrolyte-based energy device [0001]. The binder resin comprises a vinylidene fluoride polymer which may be dissolved together or individually with an adhesive additive in a solvent like water [0022]. The binder resin composition of the present invention may also contain, as necessary, other materials, such as crosslinking components, rubber components, thickeners, anti-settling agents, defoaming agents, leveling agents, and other various additives. These various additives are appropriately present in an amount of 0.01 to 100% by mass, preferably 0.1 to 30% by mass, relative to the total dry mass of the binder resin composition [0023].
However Sasaki does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the criticality of the claimed mineral oil defoamer range (0.02 to 0.3 parts by mass) as argued above. To the contrary, Sasaki teaches that with the employment of its adhesive additive, its binder composition can be used to prepare electrodes for lithium batteries and lithium batteries, that exhibit excellent charge-discharge characteristics with minimal capacity degradation during charge-discharge cycles [0007]. From the previous teaching, the presence and/or amount of a defoaming agent, does not appear to be a critical factor on the battery performance.
Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the binder composition of Sasaki or modify the taught composition of Nakamura to limit the mineral oil defoamer range to 0.02-0.3 parts by mass, because with Sasaki’s binder composition it is possible to prepare electrodes for lithium batteries and lithium batteries, that exhibit excellent charge-discharge characteristics with minimal capacity degradation during charge-discharge cycles.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights