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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/23/23 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites:
“The binder composition of claim 1, further comprising at least an electrode active material … in amounts of at least 85 wt.%.”
The specification consistently and repeatedly distinguishes between:
Binder compositions, which comprise block copolymer, optional tackifier, and optional plasticizer (see Summary [007]); and
Electrode compositions, which comprise electrode active material in amounts of ≥85 wt.%, with the binder being a minor component (see [010], [011], [017]).
In particular:
[007] describes a binder composition consisting essentially of block copolymer, tackifier, and plasticizer, without any electrode active material.
[010]–[017] describe electrode compositions, wherein electrode active material (e.g., Si, graphite, carbon black) accounts for at least 85 wt.%, and the binder accounts for less than 15 wt.%.
Nowhere does the specification describe, teach, or suggest that a binder composition itself includes electrode active material in an amount of at least 85 wt.%. Instead, electrode active material is disclosed only in the context of an electrode composition, which is a distinct composition from the binder composition.
Accordingly, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession, at the time of filing, of a binder composition that itself comprises ≥85 wt.% electrode active material, as required by claim 13.
Claim 13 impermissibly conflates two separately disclosed compositions—binder compositions and electrode compositions—without corresponding disclosure supporting such a combined formulation.
Because the claimed subject matter of claim 13 is not supported by the specification as filed, claim 13 lacks adequate written description and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0255574 A1 (US’574) in view of US 6,699,941 B1 (US’941) and further in view of US 2007/0225428 A1 (US’428).
As to Claim 1:
US’574 discloses:
a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries, particularly for non-aqueous secondary battery electrodes (Abstract; [0001], [0007]);
the binder comprises a polymer binder used to bind electrode active material to a current collector ([0010]);
the polymer binder may be a block copolymer including a vinyl aromatic block and a conjugated diene block, i.e., a styrenic–diene block copolymer ([0024]–[0028]);
the block copolymers may have linear, branched, or coupled architectures formed using known polymerization techniques ([0026]); and
the binder composition may include additional components mixed with the polymer binder to prepare an electrode slurry, provided such components do not adversely affect battery reactions, and emphasizes improving adhesion, mechanical integrity, and electrode durability during cycling ([0018], [0035]–[0037], [0040]–[0043]).
However, US’574 does not explicitly disclose: (i) that the block copolymer is present in an amount of at least 20 wt.%; (ii) that the binder composition further comprises up to 70 wt.% of a tackifying agent selected from hydrocarbon resins, alkyd resins, rosin resins, rosin esters, or combinations thereof; (iii) that the binder composition further comprises up to 40 wt.% of a plasticizer selected from vegetable oils, mineral oils, process oils, phthalates, or mixtures thereof; or (iv) that the block copolymer has a residual unsaturation of 0.5–25 meq/g.
US’941 teaches that styrenic block copolymers comprising vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks are routinely compounded with tackifying resins and plasticizing oils to adjust adhesion, flexibility, and processing behavior, including the use of hydrocarbon tackifiers and mineral oil plasticizers in substantial proportions relative to the block copolymer (col. 6, lines 45–67; col. 7, lines 1–20). US’428 similarly teaches block copolymer compositions comprising styrenic block copolymers, hydrocarbon resin tackifiers, and oil plasticizers, and explains that such components are selected and proportioned to tailor mechanical properties such as adhesion, elasticity, and film integrity ([0026]–[0034]). US’428 further teaches that residual unsaturation of conjugated diene blocks is a controllable property based on polymer selection and optional hydrogenation, such that block copolymers may retain measurable unsaturation depending on formulation objectives ([0038]–[0041]).
It is acknowledged that US’941 and US’428 arise from polymer and adhesive formulation arts and are not limited to battery environments. However, neither US’574 nor the secondary references teach away from incorporating tackifiers or plasticizers in battery binder compositions. A reference teaches away only when it discourages or criticizes the claimed modification, not merely when it originates from a different field.
US’574 itself expressly permits inclusion of additional components in the binder composition so long as they do not adversely affect battery reactions, and emphasizes improving adhesion, flexibility, and mechanical durability of the electrode binder ([0018], [0035]–[0037], [0040]–[0043]). Thus, US’574 does not exclude low-molecular-weight resinous or oily additives per se, nor does it state that such materials would inherently contaminate or be incompatible with electrolyte environments. Rather, US’574 frames binder design as a balance between mechanical performance and electrochemical stability.
US’941 and US’428 teach that tackifiers and plasticizers are selected specifically to improve cohesion and elasticity of styrenic block copolymer systems, and that their amounts and chemistries are adjustable to suit end-use requirements. A person skilled in the art of battery electrodes—who routinely formulates binders for slurry processing and coating—would have recognized that such additives could be judiciously selected (e.g., non-reactive hydrocarbon resins and oils) and used in controlled amounts to enhance adhesion and flexibility without interfering with electrochemical operation, consistent with US’574’s stated objectives.
Accordingly, the secondary references do not teach away from the claimed invention; instead, they provide well-established formulation tools that a skilled artisan would reasonably consider when seeking to improve the mechanical and adhesive performance of the styrenic block copolymer binders already taught by US’574.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the styrenic block copolymer binder composition of US’574 by incorporating tackifying agents and plasticizers as taught by US’941 and US’428, and to select a block copolymer formulation retaining a desired level of residual unsaturation, in order to improve adhesion, flexibility, and processability of the electrode binder while maintaining compatibility with battery operation, using known and predictable polymer-compounding techniques.
As to Claim 2:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer having vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks ([0024]–[0028]).US’574 further discloses that the polymer binder may be selected from styrene–butadiene–based block copolymers and related copolymers formed by polymerization of aromatic vinyl monomers and conjugated diene monomers ([0026]).US’574 teaches that such copolymers may be used as polymerized, without requiring a hydrogenation step, when appropriate electrode performance is obtained ([0026], [0031]).
Accordingly, US’574 teaches the use of styrenic–diene block copolymers in battery binder compositions, which inherently includes unhydrogenated block copolymers as initially synthesized.
However, US’574 does not explicitly state that the block copolymer is unhydrogenated, nor does it expressly distinguish between hydrogenated and unhydrogenated forms of the block copolymer.
US’941 teaches that styrenic block copolymers may be used in either hydrogenated or unhydrogenated form, and expressly discloses the use of unhydrogenated styrene–diene block copolymers in compositions requiring elasticity and adhesion (col. 2, lines 10–25; col. 5, lines 30–45).US’941 explains that unhydrogenated styrene–butadiene and styrene–isoprene block copolymers are conventional materials and are selected when higher unsaturation and elastomeric properties are desired (col. 5, lines 35–45).
US’428 similarly teaches that hydrogenation of styrenic block copolymers is optional, and that block copolymers may intentionally be left unhydrogenated depending on the desired balance of mechanical properties and chemical functionality ([0036]–[0041]).US’428 explicitly distinguishes between hydrogenated and unhydrogenated block copolymers and confirms that unhydrogenated copolymers are well known and routinely used in polymer compositions ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the styrenic block copolymer binder of US’574 in an unhydrogenated form, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because unhydrogenated styrenic–diene block copolymers are conventional, well-known alternatives that provide predictable elastomeric properties without the need for hydrogenation.
As to Claim 3:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer including a vinyl aromatic block and a conjugated diene block ([0024]–[0028]).
US’574 further teaches that the styrenic block copolymer functions as an elastic binder phase in an electrode and is selected to provide flexibility and adhesion to active material particles ([0026], [0031]).
Such styrenic block copolymers inherently comprise a major elastomeric (diene) phase and a minor styrenic phase, as required to impart elasticity, indicating that the polystyrene content is less than 50 wt.% and within conventional elastomeric ranges ([0026]).
However, US’574 does not expressly disclose a numerical limitation specifying that the polystyrene content of the block copolymer is less than 40 wt.%.
US’941 teaches that styrenic block copolymers suitable for elastomeric applications typically contain styrenic (polystyrene) blocks in amounts of about 5–35 wt.%, with the balance being elastomeric diene blocks (col. 3, lines 15–30; col. 5, lines 20–40).
US’941 explicitly explains that polystyrene contents above this range adversely affect elasticity, while contents below this range provide desirable flexibility and adhesion (col. 3, lines 25–35).
Accordingly, US’941 expressly teaches styrenic block copolymers having polystyrene content below 40 wt.%.
US’428 similarly teaches styrenic block copolymers in which the vinyl aromatic block content is controlled, and discloses representative styrene contents of about 10–35 wt.%, depending on desired mechanical properties ([0029]–[0033]).
US’428 further confirms that controlling styrene content within this range is a routine design consideration for block copolymer performance ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the styrenic block copolymer binder of US’574 with a polystyrene content of less than 40 wt.%, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because controlling styrene content within this range is a routine optimization to balance elasticity and adhesion, and would have yielded predictable results in a battery binder composition.
As to Claim 4:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer including a vinyl aromatic block and a conjugated diene block ([0024]–[0028]).US’574 expressly identifies the vinyl aromatic block as styrene-based, referring to styrenic block copolymers commonly used as elastic binders ([0025], [0026]).Thus, US’574 teaches a monovinyl aromatic block comprising styrene.
However, US’574 does not expressly disclose that the monovinyl aromatic block may be selected from the broader group recited in claim 4, such as substituted styrenes, polycyclic vinyl aromatics, or diphenyl-substituted vinyl monomers.
US’941 teaches that styrenic block copolymers may employ a wide variety of vinyl aromatic monomers, including styrene, alpha-methylstyrene, vinyltoluene, vinylxylene, and substituted styrenes, as alternatives to styrene to tailor mechanical and thermal properties (col. 2, lines 45–65; col. 3, lines 1–20).US’941 further explains that these vinyl aromatic monomers are functionally equivalent in forming the hard (A) blocks of styrenic block copolymers (col. 3, lines 10–20).
US’428 likewise discloses styrenic block copolymers in which the vinyl aromatic block may be formed from styrene, alpha-methylstyrene, vinyltoluene, vinylxylene, or mixtures thereof, and teaches that selection among these monomers is a routine design choice depending on desired glass transition temperature and compatibility ([0027]–[0031]).US’428 further confirms that such vinyl aromatic monomers are interchangeable in block copolymer synthesis ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to employ, in the binder composition of US’574, a monovinyl aromatic block selected from styrene and its known substituted or polycyclic analogs, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because such monomers are conventionally interchangeable in styrenic block copolymers and their substitution would have yielded predictable results in terms of binder performance.
As to Claim 5:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer including a conjugated diene block, such as polybutadiene or polyisoprene, in combination with a vinyl aromatic block ([0024]–[0028]).US’574 therefore teaches the presence of a conjugated diene block in the block copolymer forming the binder.
However, US’574 does not expressly disclose that the conjugated diene block may be a cyclo-conjugated diene, nor does it specifically identify 1,3-cyclohexadiene or benzofulvene as the diene monomers.
US’941 teaches that the elastomeric blocks of styrenic block copolymers may be formed from a variety of conjugated diene monomers, and explains that selection among different diene monomers is a routine design choice used to adjust elasticity, glass transition temperature, and mechanical performance (col. 1, lines 55–67; col. 2, lines 1–20).US’941 further teaches that structural variations in the diene component, including cyclic or substituted dienes, are within the ordinary skill of the art for modifying polymer properties (col. 2, lines 10–25).
US’428 expressly teaches block copolymers comprising vinyl aromatic blocks and non-linear conjugated diene monomers, including cyclic conjugated dienes, and explains that such monomers may be substituted for linear dienes to tune polymer rigidity and unsaturation characteristics ([0025]–[0029]).US’428 thus teaches that cyclo-conjugated dienes are known alternatives to linear conjugated dienes in block copolymer synthesis.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the conjugated diene block of the styrenic block copolymer binder of US’574 to employ a cyclo-conjugated diene, such as 1,3-cyclohexadiene or benzofulvene, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because such substitution represents a routine variation among known conjugated diene monomers yielding predictable polymer properties without changing the fundamental operation of the binder.
As to Claim 6:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer having a vinyl aromatic block and a conjugated diene block, wherein the conjugated diene block is exemplified by polybutadiene and polyisoprene ([0024]–[0028]).Accordingly, US’574 teaches a block copolymer comprising butadiene-based conjugated diene blocks suitable for use as a battery binder.
However, US’574 does not explicitly limit the conjugated diene block polymer to butadiene alone or mixtures thereof, nor does it emphasize butadiene as a selected species to the exclusion of other conjugated dienes.
US’941 expressly teaches that polybutadiene is a preferred and widely used conjugated diene block in styrenic block copolymers because it provides desirable elasticity, toughness, and processability, and is routinely selected from among available conjugated dienes (col. 1, lines 55–67; col. 3, lines 10–25).US’941 further teaches that block copolymers containing butadiene blocks are standard in elastomeric compositions and are interchangeable with other conjugated diene blocks depending on desired properties (col. 3, lines 26–40).
US’428 similarly teaches block copolymers comprising vinyl aromatic blocks and polybutadiene conjugated diene blocks, and explains that butadiene is a conventional and preferred conjugated diene monomer due to its controllable unsaturation and mechanical behavior ([0022]–[0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select butadiene as the conjugated diene block polymer in the styrenic block copolymer binder of US’574, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because butadiene is a conventional and preferred conjugated diene monomer in styrenic block copolymers, and such selection represents a routine species choice from a known genus yielding predictable results.
As to Claim 7:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising styrenic block copolymers including linear and branched block copolymers having a vinyl aromatic block (e.g., styrene) and a conjugated diene block (e.g., butadiene or isoprene), and further discloses that such block copolymers may be coupled using coupling agents to form multi-arm or branched structures ([0023]–[0029], [0042]).US’574 therefore teaches block copolymers having A-B and A-B-A type architectures suitable for use as battery binders.
However, US’574 does not explicitly disclose the full range of specific block copolymer architectures recited in claim 7, including A-I-B-I-A terpolymers, radial (A-B)n_nn-X structures with n ≥ 3, or mixed multi-block architectures incorporating both butadiene and isoprene blocks in defined sequences.
US’941 expressly teaches unhydrogenated styrenic block copolymers having a wide variety of linear, radial, and branched architectures, including A-B-A, (A-B)n_nn-X, and multi-arm radial copolymers formed using coupling agents, wherein A is a vinyl aromatic block and B is a conjugated diene block such as butadiene or isoprene (col. 2, lines 10–35; col. 4, lines 1–30; col. 6, lines 15–40).US’941 further teaches that terpolymer structures incorporating both isoprene and butadiene blocks (e.g., A-I-B-I-A and related architectures) are conventional and selectable to tailor elasticity and mechanical strength (col. 5, lines 10–35).
US’428 similarly teaches styrenic block copolymers having A-B-A, (A-B)n_nn, and coupled architectures, including unhydrogenated polymers, and explains that such architectures are obtained through routine selection of monomer sequence and coupling agents ([0019]–[0026], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the specific block copolymer architectures recited in claim 7 for the binder composition of US’574, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because such linear, radial, branched, and terpolymer styrenic block copolymer structures were well-known alternatives within the same class of materials, and their selection represents a routine design choice yielding predictable results.
As to Claim 8:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a block copolymer binder including styrenic block copolymers having vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks, suitable for use in electrode compositions ([0021]–[0027], [0033]–[0039]). US’574 further teaches that such binders may be chemically modified or selected to improve adhesion, dispersion stability, and interfacial compatibility with electrode active materials ([0018], [0040]–[0043]).
However, US’574 does not explicitly disclose that the block copolymer is functionalized for a functionality selected from maleation, epoxidation, silanation, carboxylic acid/salt, quaternary ammonium salt, or sulfonation, as recited in claim 8.
US’941 discloses styrenic block copolymers comprising vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks that are chemically functionalized to improve adhesion, polarity, and compatibility with fillers and substrates. In particular, US’941 teaches maleated block copolymers, epoxidized diene blocks, and carboxyl-functional styrenic elastomers as well-known modifications for enhancing interfacial bonding (col. 6, lines 35–60; col. 7, lines 1–25).
US’428 further teaches that post-polymerization functionalization of styrenic block copolymers, including maleation, epoxidation, sulfonation, and introduction of ionic or polar functional groups, is a routine and predictable technique used to tailor surface energy, adhesion, and compatibility with inorganic materials ([0016]–[0021], [0026]–[0030]).
Together, US’941 and US’428 teach each of the functionalization options recited in claim 8 and establish that such functionalization is a known modification applied to styrenic block copolymers for improved performance in composite formulations.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the block copolymer binder of US’574 to be functionalized with maleic anhydride, epoxy, silane, carboxylic acid/salt, quaternary ammonium salt, or sulfonic acid groups, as taught by US’941 and US’428, in order to improve adhesion, polarity, and interfacial compatibility with electrode active materials, such modification representing a routine and predictable optimization of known styrenic block copolymer binders.
As to Claim 9:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer having vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks, suitable for electrode applications ([0021]–[0027], [0033]–[0039]). US’574 further teaches that binder polymers may be chemically selected or modified to improve adhesion, dispersion stability, and interaction with electrode active materials ([0018], [0040]–[0043]).
However, US’574 does not explicitly disclose that the functionalization of the block copolymer is achieved by post-polymerization functionalization, by polymerizing monomers with functionality, or combinations thereof, as specifically recited in claim 9.
US’941 discloses that styrenic block copolymers may be functionalized by post-polymerization chemical modification, including maleation, epoxidation, and introduction of carboxyl-containing functional groups onto pre-formed block copolymers to tailor polarity and adhesion (col. 6, lines 35–60; col. 7, lines 1–25). US’941 further teaches that such functionalization techniques are conventional and interchangeable with other known methods of introducing functionality.
US’428 explicitly teaches that functional groups may be introduced into styrenic block copolymers either (i) by post-polymerization functionalization reactions (e.g., grafting maleic anhydride, epoxidation, sulfonation), or (ii) by copolymerizing functionalized monomers during polymer synthesis, and that both approaches are well-known, routine alternatives for achieving equivalent functionalized polymers ([0016]–[0021], [0026]–[0032]).
Thus, US’941 and US’428 collectively teach each of the functionalization pathways recited in claim 9, namely post-polymerization functionalization, polymerization of functional monomers, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to functionalize the block copolymer binder of US’574 either by post-polymerization functionalization, by polymerizing monomers with functionality, or by a combination of both, as taught by US’941 and US’428, in order to obtain a functionalized binder with improved adhesion and compatibility, such modification representing a routine and predictable choice among known polymer functionalization techniques.
As to Claim 10:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer having vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks, which is incorporated into electrode slurries and coated onto current collectors using conventional wet-processing techniques ([0021]–[0027], [0034]–[0041]). US’574 further teaches that the binder polymer is typically dissolved or dispersed in a solvent to form a slurry for electrode fabrication, thereby inherently disclosing the binder in solution or suspension form during processing ([0036]–[0039]).
However, US’574 does not explicitly disclose that the block copolymer binder is provided or stored in all of the specific physical forms recited in claim 10, namely powder, pellet, crumb, aqueous dispersion, or latex form.
US’941 discloses that styrenic block copolymers of the same general type are commercially produced, stored, transported, and processed in multiple physical forms, including pellets, crumbs, powders, solutions, and dispersions, depending on the intended application and processing method (col. 4, lines 10–30; col. 5, lines 5–25). US’941 further teaches that latex and aqueous dispersion forms of block copolymers are well known and advantageous for certain coating and adhesion applications.
US’428 similarly teaches that styrenic block copolymers and modified variants thereof may be provided in solution, suspension, aqueous dispersion, or latex form, and that the choice of physical form is a routine processing decision dictated by manufacturing convenience and end-use requirements rather than polymer chemistry ([0023]–[0026], [0033]–[0036]).
Thus, US’941 and US’428 collectively teach each of the physical forms recited in claim 10 for styrenic block copolymers of the same type used as binders in US’574.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the block copolymer binder of US’574 in any of the conventional physical forms recited in claim 10, including powder, pellet, crumb, solution, suspension, aqueous dispersion, or latex form, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because selecting a particular physical form for storage, transport, or processing represents a routine and predictable design choice that does not alter the chemical composition or function of the binder.
As to Claim 11:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer having vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks, which is processed into electrode slurries using liquid media and coating techniques ([0034]–[0041]). US’574 teaches dispersing the binder polymer in liquid systems to achieve uniform coating and adhesion to electrode active materials, thereby inherently requiring stabilization of polymer dispersion during slurry preparation and coating ([0036]–[0039]).
However, US’574 does not expressly disclose that an aqueous dispersion of the block copolymer comprises a surfactant, as specifically recited in claim 11.
US’941 discloses that aqueous dispersions and latexes of styrenic block copolymers are conventionally prepared and stabilized using surfactants or emulsifying agents to prevent coagulation and to maintain particle stability during storage and processing (col. 3, lines 45–65; col. 5, lines 40–60). US’941 explains that the inclusion of surfactants in aqueous dispersions is standard practice in latex polymer technology, irrespective of the ultimate end use of the polymer.
US’428 similarly teaches that when styrenic block copolymers are provided in aqueous dispersion or latex form, one or more surfactants or emulsifiers are routinely included to stabilize polymer particles, control particle size, and maintain dispersion uniformity ([0024]–[0026], [0034]–[0037]). US’428 further indicates that the selection and inclusion of surfactants in aqueous polymer dispersions is a predictable and conventional processing step.
Thus, US’941 and US’428 together explicitly teach the use of surfactants in aqueous dispersions of styrenic block copolymers, thereby disclosing the limitation of claim 11.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the aqueous dispersion form of the block copolymer binder of US’574 with a surfactant, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because the inclusion of a surfactant in an aqueous polymer dispersion is a routine, predictable, and necessary measure to stabilize the dispersion and enable uniform processing, and doing so would involve no change in the fundamental composition or function of the binder.
As to Claim 12:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer including vinyl aromatic blocks and conjugated diene blocks, which is incorporated into electrode compositions together with active materials and processed as a coating or slurry ([0034]–[0042]). US’574 teaches that the binder may be formulated to achieve desired adhesion, mechanical integrity, and processability in electrode fabrication ([0036]–[0040]).
However, US’574 does not expressly disclose that the block copolymer binder may be blended with other polymers, resins, and/or tackifier or adhesion promoters, such as polyamides, terpene/phenol resins, or rosin esters, as specifically recited in claim 12.
US’941 discloses that styrenic block copolymers are routinely blended with additional polymers, resins, and tackifiers to tailor adhesion, cohesion, and mechanical performance of the resulting composition (col. 4, lines 10–35; col. 6, lines 20–55). In particular, US’941 expressly teaches blending block copolymers with rosin esters, terpene/phenol resins, and other adhesion promoters to improve interfacial bonding and film integrity (col. 6, lines 35–65; col. 7, lines 1–15), including in formulations provided in latex or dispersion form.
US’428 further teaches that styrenic block copolymers may be combined with additional polymers and resins, including polyamide-type polymers and tackifying resins, to adjust adhesion, flexibility, and compatibility in composite formulations ([0027]–[0031], [0040]–[0043]). US’428 explains that such blending is a conventional formulation technique used to optimize end-use properties without altering the fundamental nature of the block copolymer binder.
Thus, US’941 and US’428 together teach the precise limitation of claim 12, namely that the block copolymer binder may be blended with other polymers, resins, and/or tackifier/adhesion promoters, including rosin esters and related materials, optionally in latex form.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to blend the block copolymer binder composition of US’574 with other polymers, resins, and/or tackifier or adhesion promoters as taught by US’941 and US’428, because blending styrenic block copolymers with such materials to tune adhesion and mechanical performance is a routine and predictable formulation practice, and doing so would have been expected to improve electrode coating integrity without changing the fundamental function of the binder.
As to Claim 13:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries and teaches forming electrode compositions using the binder together with electrode active materials such as graphite, carbon black, and silicon-based active materials (e.g., [0029]–[0033], [0036]–[0042]). US’574 further discloses, in its working examples, electrode formulations in which the electrode active material constitutes essentially all of the electrode solids. In particular, Example 1 of US’574 teaches an electrode composition in which the active material is present at about 97.5 wt.%, which necessarily satisfies the limitation of claim 13 requiring that the electrode active material is present in an amount of at least 85 wt.% (Example 1 and the associated formulation description/table).
As to Claim 14:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for use in rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer binder, which may be provided in various physical forms including powder, solution, suspension, or aqueous dispersion, for use in electrode fabrication ([0031]–[0033], [0043]–[0046]). US’574 further teaches that the binder may be processed by dispersion, milling, mixing, or coating techniques customary in electrode manufacturing, which inherently involve control of polymer particle or domain size to ensure coating uniformity and adhesion ([0044]–[0048]).
However, US’574 does not expressly disclose that the block copolymer has a particle size of 0.05–20.0 μm, as specifically recited in claim 14.
US’941 teaches styrenic block copolymers that may be prepared, processed, or dispersed as fine particles or domains, with particle size being a controllable processing parameter selected based on the intended application, mixing behavior, and dispersion stability (col. 6, lines 5–35; col. 7, lines 10–40). US’941 explains that micron-scale polymer particles are routinely employed to improve dispersion uniformity and mechanical performance in composite systems.
US’428 further teaches that polymer binders used in particulate composites are commonly prepared or processed to have particle sizes ranging from sub-micron to tens of microns, depending on coating method, slurry rheology, and desired film properties ([0036]–[0041], [0052]–[0056]). US’428 expressly indicates that particle size selection within such ranges is a routine optimization variable, adjusted to balance dispersion stability, coating quality, and mechanical integrity.
Together, US’941 and US’428 teach that selecting a polymer binder particle size within the claimed range of 0.05–20.0 μm is a conventional and predictable design choice, routinely optimized based on processing and performance considerations.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the block copolymer binder of US’574 to have a particle size within the range of 0.05–20.0 μm, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because polymer particle size is a well-known, result-effective variable routinely optimized to improve dispersion stability, coating uniformity, and electrode performance, and selecting a size within this range would have involved no more than ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 15:
US’574 discloses a binder composition for rechargeable batteries comprising a styrenic block copolymer binder used to provide mechanical integrity, elasticity, adhesion, and electrochemical stability in electrode compositions ([0026]–[0030], [0041]–[0048]). US’574 teaches that the block copolymer binder is selected to provide sufficient elongation, flexibility, and thermal properties to accommodate electrode volume changes during cycling ([0042], [0046]). US’574 further teaches that binder composition and structure influence dielectric behavior and electrical insulation properties of the electrode coating ([0049]).
However, US’574 does not expressly disclose numerical ranges for the block copolymer properties recited in claim 15.
US’941 teaches that styrenic block copolymers, including unhydrogenated styrene–diene block copolymers, inherently possess high elongation at break, often exceeding 400%, depending on styrene content and block architecture (col. 4, lines 20–45; col. 6, lines 1–20). US’941 further teaches that glass transition temperature (Tg) of such block copolymers is routinely controlled through styrene content, molecular weight, and block configuration, with Tg values commonly falling within room temperature to moderately elevated temperature ranges, including 30–90 °C (col. 5, lines 10–40; col. 7, lines 5–25).
US’428 teaches that polymer binders used in composite and electronic materials exhibit predictable dielectric properties, including dielectric constant and dissipation factor, which are governed by polymer chemistry and morphology ([0022]–[0026], [0044]–[0048]). US’428 further teaches that styrenic and diene-based polymers commonly exhibit dielectric constants in the range of approximately 2–3 and low dissipation factors, and that such properties are routinely optimized to balance mechanical integrity and electrical insulation in functional coatings ([0046]–[0051]).
Accordingly, US’941 and US’428 teach that the mechanical, thermal, and dielectric properties recited in claim 15 are inherent or routinely achievable characteristics of styrenic block copolymers, and that selecting values within the claimed ranges constitutes routine optimization of result-effective variables.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the block copolymer binder of US’574 to possess one or more of the claimed elongation at break, glass transition temperature, dielectric constant, and dissipation factor values, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because these properties are well-known, result-effective variables that are routinely controlled through polymer composition and architecture to achieve predictable mechanical and electrical performance, and selecting values within the claimed ranges would have involved no more than ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 16:
US’574 discloses an electrode composition for rechargeable batteries comprising an electrode active material, optional filler, and a polymeric binder (e.g., [0024]–[0026], [0038]–[0041]). US’574 teaches that the electrode active material may include silicon, silicon alloys/composites, graphite, and carbon-based materials, and that the binder is used in a minor amount sufficient to bind particles while minimizing electrochemically inactive content (e.g., [0039], [0043]–[0046]). US’574 further discloses, in its working examples, an electrode formulation in which the electrode active material is about 97.5 wt.%, such that the binder necessarily is less than 15 wt.% and the active material is at least 85 wt.%, satisfying the numerical weight-percentage limitations of claim 16 (Example 1 and the associated formulation description/table).
US’574 also teaches that the binder used in the electrode composition may be a styrenic block copolymer binder (vinyl aromatic block(s) and conjugated diene block(s)) selected for mechanical compliance and adhesion to high-expansion active materials such as silicon (e.g., [0046]–[0049]).
As to Claim 17:
US’574 discloses an electrode composition comprising an electrode active material, optional filler, and a polymeric binder ([0024]–[0026], [0038]–[0041]). US’574 teaches that the binder may be selected from elastomeric polymer binders, including styrenic block copolymers and rubber-based polymers, selected to provide elasticity, adhesion, and mechanical durability during electrode expansion and contraction ([0046]–[0049], [0052]). US’574 further teaches that the binder may be tailored to provide ionic or electronic functionality, depending on electrode design needs ([0050]).
However, US’574 does not expressly enumerate the binder being selected specifically from isoprene rubbers (IR), silicone-containing block copolymers, electronically conductive block copolymers, and ionically conductive block copolymers, as recited in claim 17.
US’941 teaches isoprene-based rubbers and styrene–diene block copolymers, including unhydrogenated styrene–isoprene and styrene–butadiene systems, as elastomeric binders suitable for composite formulations requiring flexibility, adhesion, and resistance to mechanical stress (col. 2, lines 40–60; col. 6, lines 1–20). These materials correspond to the isoprene rubber (IR) binder species recited in claim 17.
US’428 teaches that binders for electrode and composite systems may be selected from functionalized block copolymers, including silicone-containing block copolymers, as well as electronically conductive and ionically conductive polymer binders, to improve electrode conductivity, interfacial stability, and electrochemical performance ([0030]–[0034], [0046]–[0052]). US’428 further teaches that such binder selections represent routine alternatives within the known binder classes for battery electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select the binder of the electrode composition of US’574 from isoprene rubbers, silicone-containing block copolymers, electronically conductive block copolymers, or ionically conductive block copolymers, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because these binder types are well-known, predictable alternatives within the art for achieving desired elasticity, conductivity, and interfacial stability in battery electrodes, and selecting among such known binder species would have involved no more than ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 18:
US’574 discloses a process of making an electrode composition comprising mixing an electrode active material, optional fillers, and a polymeric binder to form an electrode slurry or composite suitable for electrode fabrication ([0038]–[0043], [0055]–[0058]). US’574 teaches that the binder may be provided in solution, dispersion, or melt-processable form and that the electrode composition may be shaped or formed using conventional polymer processing techniques appropriate for the selected binder system ([0047], [0059]).
US’574 therefore teaches a process of making an electrode composition of claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose fiber spinning, including melt spinning or solution spinning, as the specific forming technique.
US’941 teaches that elastomeric block copolymer compositions, including styrenic block copolymers and rubber-based systems, may be processed using fiber spinning techniques, including melt spinning and solution spinning, to form fibers, mats, or filamentary structures for composite applications (col. 7, lines 10–35; col. 8, lines 1–20). US’941 further teaches that the choice between melt spinning and solution spinning depends on polymer solubility, thermal stability, and desired fiber morphology.
US’428 similarly teaches that electrode and composite polymer formulations containing functionalized block copolymers may be processed by fiber-forming techniques, including melt spinning or solution spinning, as routine shaping methods to improve dispersion, mechanical integrity, and interfacial contact within electrochemical systems ([0042]–[0046], [0060]–[0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the electrode composition of US’574 by fiber spinning, including melt spinning or solution spinning, as taught by US’941 and US’428, because fiber spinning is a well-known, predictable processing technique for shaping block copolymer-containing compositions, and selecting such a known forming method would have involved no more than routine optimization and ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0302563 discloses elastomeric binders improve electrode integrity during volume change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723