DETAILED ACTION
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 on 03/19/2026:
Claim 1 have been amended.
Claim 10 has been newly added.
The previous prior art has been applied. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 06/07/2026 and 01/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0277848 to Matsumura et al.
With respect to claim 1, Matsumura et al. further teach a binder composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery positive electrode comprising a polymer, wherein the polymer includes a nitrile group-containing monomer unit, and the polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 200,000 (Matsumura et al.: Sections [0064] and [0307]; Example 7; Table 1).
Matsumura et al. further teach using 0.25 parts of ammonium persulfate as a polymerization initiator, and the weight percentage of sulfur in ammonium persulfate is about 28% and the polymerization conversion rate was 85%, which implied the sulfur content is about 595 ppm in the polymer (Matsumura et al.: Section [0270]).
Matsumura et al. do not specifically teach the polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 150,000 or less.
However, in Table 1, Example 3 of the current application shows the polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 250000 and a sulfur content of 500ppm or more. Example 3 actually has a higher weight-average molecular weight and a lower sulfur content than the polymer of Matsumura. In this case, the polymer of Matsumura et al. should have a better result than the polymer from example 3. The specification does not specifically show how the Examples 1, 2, 4 and 5 being significantly better than the Example 3 as the Example 3 is one of the working example. In this case, the polymer of Matsumura et al. should at least work as good as Example 3.
With respect to claim 2, Matsumura et al. teach the binder composition, wherein the polymer includes a linear alkylene structural unit having a carbon number of 4 or more in a proportion of 65% (Matsumura et al.: Sections [0064] and [0307]; Example 7; Table 1).
With respect to claim 3, Matsumura et al. teach the binder composition, wherein the polymer includes the nitrile group-containing monomer unit in a proportion of 35% (Matsumura et al.: Sections [0064] and [0307]; Example 7; Table 1).
With respect to claim 4, Matsumura et al. teach the binder composition, wherein the polymer has an iodine value of 20 mg/100 mg (Matsumura et al.: Sections [0064] and [0307]; Example 7; Table 1).
With respect to claim 5, Matsumura et al. teach a conductive material dispersion liquid for a non-aqueous secondary battery positive electrode comprising: a conductive material including carbon nanotubes; a dispersion medium; and the binder composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery positive electrode (Matsumura et al.: Sections [0064] and [0307]; Example 7; Table 1).
With respect to claim 6, Matsumura et al. does not teach the conductive material dispersion liquid for a non-aqueous secondary battery positive electrode, wherein a value of volume-average particle diameter D50 in a particle size distribution for dispersed particle diameter of the carbon nanotubes is not less than 0.1 μm and not more than 5.0 μm.
However, Matsumura et al. further teach the other conductive material having an average particle diameter from 10 nm to 10 μm (Matsumura et al.: Section [0152]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the average particle diameter of any conductive material from 10 nm to 10 μm with the motivation of having a means such carbon nanotubes could be use as other conductive material as well.
With respect to claim 7, Matsumura et al. teach a slurry composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery positive electrode comprising: an electrode active material; and the conductive material dispersion liquid for a non-aqueous secondary battery positive electrode (Matsumura et al.: Section [0163]).
With respect to claim 8, Matsumura et al. teach a positive electrode for a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising a positive electrode mixed material layer formed using the slurry composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery positive electrode (Matsumura et al.: Section [0176]).
With respect to claim 9, Matsumura et al. teach a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode for a non-aqueous secondary; a negative electrode; a separator; and an electrolyte solution (Matsumura et al.: Section [0206]).
With respect to claim 10, Matsumura et al. do not specifically teach the binder composition, wherein the polymer has the sulfur content of 3000 ppm or more.
Matsumura et al. do not specifically teach the polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 150,000 or less.
However, in Table 1, Example 3 of the current application shows the polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 250000 and a sulfur content of 500 ppm or more. Example 3 actually has a higher weight-average molecular weight and a lower sulfur content than the polymer of Matsumura. In this case, the polymer of Matsumura et al. should have a better result than the polymer from example 3. The specification does not specifically show how the Examples 1, 2, 4 and 5 being significantly better than the Example 3 as the Example 3 is one of the working example. In this case, the polymer of Matsumura et al. should at least work as good as Example 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner alleges that Matsumura inherently meets the claimed sulfur content range.
Examiner agrees that Matsumura does not specifically shows the sulfur content, however, the calculation shown above is actually meets the limitation requirement. Plus Matsumura does not specifically state that the sulfur content would be completely washed away or removed. So theoretically the sulfur content could be just the same as the estimation above.
Therefore the rejections will be maintained.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 6/14/2026
Prosecution Insights