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 .
BINDER FOR NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY, ELECTRODE MIXTURE, ELECTRODE, AND NON-AQUEOUS ELECTORLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/262,675 Art Unit: 1727 June 22, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on April 23, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-13 are currently pending. Claims 1-3, 6.and 8-13 have been amended. Claims 4-5 and 7 have been canceled.
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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites an intended use for a binder. The courts have held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 1-13 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation where “n is an integer of 2 or greater and 10 or less”, and the claim also recites “n represents an integer of 3 or greater and 6 or less) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hochstetter on claims 1-6 and 10-12 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hochstetter on claims 1-6 and 10-12 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hochstetter on claims 1-3, 6.and 8-13 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6.and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstetter et al. (US 2016/0017136 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/10/2025).
As to Claims 1-3, 6 and 10-12, Hochstetter discloses a rechargeable battery, comprising a binder for conductive particles (reads on the claimed electrode having a current collector and the electrode mixture layer having an active material), wherein said binder comprises: a composition comprising a PVdF homopolymer, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, and a plasticizer (additive) such as dioctyl phthalate (reads on Formula A-1 when n=2), wherein the plasticizer is present in an amount of 1-5 wt%, (the upper limit reads on the claimed lower limit) (paragraphs [0040 and 0073] and claims 1, 3, 9, 19). The additive of Hochstetter is very structurally similar to the claimed compounds wherein n=3. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, see MPEP 2144.09, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a claimed compound in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties and Hochstetter teaches that a compound with improves fatigue strength and improved impact strength is provided (paragraphs [0042 and 0060]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstetter et al. (US 2016/0017136 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/10/2025) as applied to claims 1-3, 6 and 10-12 above and in further view of Bauer et al. (US 2004/0188880 A1).
As to Claim 8, Hochstetter does not specifically disclose the claimed compounds.
However, Bauer teaches of a plasticizer used in a binder composition of an electrode for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein the plasticizer is triethyl phosphate, tripropyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate, triisobutyl phosphate, tripentyl phosphate, trihexyl phosphate, trioctyl phosphate, tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate, tridecyl phosphate, diethyl n-butyl phosphate, tris(butoxyethyl) phosphate, and tris(2-methoxyethyl) phosphate (Abstract and paragraph [0125]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the binder of Hochstetter to comprise the claimed compounds because Bauer teaches that such compounds are suitable for use as a plasticizer (paragraph [0125]).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochstetter et al. (US 2016/0017136 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/10/2025) as applied to claims 1-3, 6 and 10-12 above and in further view of Nishimura et al. (JP 2000-256616A; as found in IDS dated and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 9 and 13, Hochstetter does not specifically disclose wherein the binder further comprises a polyisocyanate-based compound comprising a blocking agent (claim 9) or wherein the rechargeable battery is a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (claim 13).
However, Nishimura teaches of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a binder composition comprising: a polyisocyanate-based compound containing a blocking agent, such as tolylene diisocyanate, hexamethylene isocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate ([6]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the binder and the battery of Hochstetter to comprise the claimed compound and a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery because Nishimura teaches that the ease of production and yield are improved and a safe battery can be provided (Technical Field and [6]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Hochstetter does not disclose or render obvious the specific structures of Formula (A-1)-(A-4) with the specific mass ratio (claim 1).
b) Hochstetter does not teach the high adhesiveness to an active material and/or collector and high flexibility capable of withstanding bending (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) The additive of Hochstetter is very structurally similar to the claimed compounds wherein n=3. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, see MPEP 2144.09, I. In addition, Hochstetter teaches the claimed amount (the upper limit reads on the claimed lower limit). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a claimed compound in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties and Hochstetter teaches that a compound with improves fatigue strength and improved impact strength is provided (paragraphs [0042 and 0060]).
b) In response to applicant's argument that Hochstetter does not teach the high adhesiveness to an active material and/or collector and high flexibility capable of withstanding bending, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights