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
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 filed on 07/09/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-12 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office actioned mailed 03/10/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Kim fails to describe or suggest a polymer containing structural units derived from (meth)acrylic acid having a carboxyl group in a free or salted state”. The Examiner disagrees. Along with the acrylic polymers mainly containing structural units derived from (meth)acrylate esters, in ¶ 0038, Kim teaches that the monomer A (first monomer) may be a carboxy group containing monomer such as methyl (meth) acrylic acid which is a polymer containing structural units derived from (meth)acrylic acid having a carboxyl group in a free or salted state. Additionally, in ¶ 0036, Kim teaches that “a compound containing “meth” in the present specification means that the “meth” is selectively described. For example, (meth) acrylic acid refers to methacrylic acid or acrylic acid”. In this case, the methyl (meth) acrylic acid may also be referred to as methyl acrylic acid which is the same as the (meth)acrylic acid that is exemplified as an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer in ¶ 0018 of applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant argument that the secondary references Asano and Yongkyoung do not relate to lithium-sulfur batteries and would therefore not be combinable with the Kim are not persuasive. The secondary references both relate to a binder used in a battery which demonstrates a similar field of endeavor. Asano was used to teach a suitable crosslinking agent that may be used in the binder taught by Kim, not to substitute the binder. Similarly, Yongkyoung was used to teach a particle diameter of the crosslinked polymer, not to replace the binder taught by Kim. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20200176775 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur secondary battery electrode binder (¶ 0031). Kim teaches that the binder comprises an acrylic polymer (carboxyl group-containing polymer) that includes an acrylic monomer polymerized unit, a non-acrylic monomer polymerized unit, and a redox monomer polymerized unit (¶ 0035). Kim teaches that the acrylic monomer polymerized unit is made up of a first and second acrylic monomer which read on monomers A and B respectively (¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039). Kim teaches that the first acrylic monomer may comprises a carboxyl group-containing monomer such as methyl (meth)acrylic acid (¶ 0038). In ¶ 0036, Kim discloses that a compound containing “meth” means that the “meth” is selectively described. This means that the methyl (meth) acrylic acid may also be referred to as methyl acrylic acid. In the case of methyl (meth)acrylic acid or methyl acrylic acid, the carboxyl group-containing polymer contains a structural unit derived from an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer (A). Kim goes on to teach that the second acrylic monomer may be methyl (meth)acrylate (¶ 0039). In the case of methyl (meth)acrylate, the polymer contains a structural unit derived from an ethylenically unsaturated monomer (B) that is different from the ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer (A). The ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer (A) taught by Kim (methyl (meth)acrylic acid or methyl acrylic acid) consists of methacrylic acid having a carboxyl group in a free or salted state. The ethylenically unsaturated monomer (B) taught by Kim ( methyl (meth)acrylate) is an alkyl (meth) acrylate since methyl is an alkyl. Thus, Kim teaches that the ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer (A) is one or more selected from the group consisting of (meth)acrylic acid having a carboxyl group in a free or salted state, and ethylenically unsaturated monomer (B) is one or more selected from the group consisting of alkyl (meth)acrylates, aromatic (meth)acrylates, styrenes, and aliphatic conjugated diene monomers. In ¶ 0038, Kim teaches that a solubility of 20 wt.% means that a maximum of 20g of the polymer can be dissolved in 100 g of water. Kim goes on to teach that the ethylenically unsaturated monomer (B) (second acrylic monomer) has a solubility of 10 wt.% or less in water. Therefore, a solubility of 10 wt.% or less in water is a solubility of 10 g or less in 100 g of water. This reads on ethylenically unsaturated monomer (B) having a solubility of 10 g or less in 100 g of water at 200C.
With regards to claim 4, Kim teaches that the carboxyl group-containing polymer (acrylic polymer) may be a crosslinked polymer via a crosslinking agent (¶ 0052).
With regards to claim 5, Kim teaches the lithium-sulfur secondary battery electrode binder according to claim 4. Applicant’s specification describes a crosslinkable monomer as having two or more polymerizable unsaturated groups and monomers having self-crosslinkable functional groups. Kim teaches that a crosslinking agent having two or more functional groups capable of reacting with a crosslinkable functional group of the acrylic polymer is included in the binder so the binder forms a crosslinking network (¶ 0052). In this case, the acrylic binder taught by Kim reads on the non-crosslinkable monomer while the crosslinking agent reads on the crosslinkable monomer.
With regards to claim 9, Kim teaches the lithium-sulfur secondary battery electrode binder according to claim 1, which is used for producing a positive electrode of a lithium-sulfur secondary battery (¶ 0031).
With regards to claim 10, Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur secondary battery electrode mixture layer composition (¶ 0048), comprising: the lithium-sulfur secondary battery electrode binder of claim 1, an active material, and water (¶ 0048 and ¶ 0054; water is used as a solvent).
With regards to claim 11, Kim teaches that the active material contains elemental sulfur or a sulfur-based compound (¶ 0050).
With regards to claim 12, Kim teaches a lithium-sulfur secondary battery electrode, comprising, on a collector surface, a mixture layer formed from the secondary battery electrode mixture layer composition of claim 10 (¶ 0058).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200176775 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 2, Kim teaches that the acrylic monomer polymerized unit (A and B) in the acrylic polymer (carboxyl group-containing polymer) contains from 1.0 mass% to 50 mass% of the structural unit derived from the ethylenically unsaturated monomer (B) with respect to 100 parts by weight of the first acrylic monomer (A) (¶ 0039; 1 to 50 parts by weight). Kim does not specifically teach that the range with respect to all the structural units of the carboxyl group-containing polymer. However, Kim teaches that the carboxyl group-containing polymer (acrylic polymer) comprises 30-70 wt.% of the acrylic monomer polymerized units (¶ 0042). In this case, the carboxyl group-containing polymer (acrylic polymer) contains from 0.3 mass% to 35 mass% of the second acrylic monomer (B) with respect to all the structural units of the carboxyl group-containing polymer (acrylic polymer). This overlaps with the range from 1.0 mass% to 50 mass% of the claimed invention. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 3, Kim teaches that the acrylic monomer polymerized unit (A and B) in the acrylic polymer (carboxyl group-containing polymer) contains from 30 mass% or more of the structural unit derived from the ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid monomer (A) with respect to the acrylic monomer polymerized unit (¶ 0038). Kim does not specifically teach that the range with respect to all the structural units of the carboxyl group-containing polymer. As discussed earlier, Kim teaches that the carboxyl group-containing polymer (acrylic polymer) comprises 30-70 wt.% of the acrylic monomer polymerized units (¶ 0042). In this case, the carboxyl group-containing polymer (acrylic polymer) contains from 9 mass% or more of the first acrylic monomer (A) with respect to all the structural units of the carboxyl group-containing polymer (acrylic polymer). This overlaps with the claimed range of 50 mass% to 99.9 mass%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200176775 A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Asano et al. (US 20190157680 A1).
With regards to claim 6, Kim teaches a use amount of the crosslinkable monomer (crosslinking agent) is from 0.0001 to 1 part by weight relative to a total amount of the non-crosslinkable monomer (acrylic polymer) (¶ 0052). Kim also teaches that the acrylic polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 5000 to 3000,000 (¶ 0045). The amount of the crosslinkable monomer used in mol% using the molecular weight of the polymer provided by Kim, along with the molecular weight of the crosslinkable monomer. Kim does not teach a specific monomer however; Kim teaches it may be selected from an epoxy crosslinking agent (¶ 0052).
In a similar field of endeavor, Asano teaches a similar binder comprising a crosslinkable monomer unit in an amount of 0.1 mass% to 1 mass% (¶ 0022). Similar to Kim, Asano teaches an epoxy crosslinking monomer such as o-allylphenyl glycidyl ether (¶ 0064). In this case, the crosslinking monomer has a molecular weight of 191.25 g/mol. Using a crosslinking agent amount of 1g as taught by Kim, and assuming a total polymer weight of 10 Kg, the amount of crosslinking monomer used in mol percent can be calculated to be about 0.26 mol% which falls withing the claimed rang of 0.1 mol% to 2.0 mol%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the epoxy crosslinking agent taught by Kim with the o-allylphenyl glycidyl ether taught by Asano as there are no unpredictable results. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
With regards to claim 7, Kim does not specifically teach that the crosslinkable monomer contains a compound having two or more allyl ether groups in the molecule. However, as discussed earlier, Kim teaches that the crosslinking agent may have two or more functional groups capable of reacting with a crosslinkable functional group of the acrylic polymer (¶ 0052). Kim also teaches that the agent may be selected from an epoxy crosslinking agent (¶ 0052).
In a similar field of endeavor, Asano also teaches that the crosslinking monomer may include an epoxy group (¶ 0064). Asano goes on to teaches crosslinkable monomers having two or more allyl ether groups such as trimethylolpropane-diallyl ether (¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the crosslinkable monomer taught by Kim with the trimethylolpropane-diallyl ether taught by Asano as there are no unpredictable results. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200176775 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Yongkyoung et al. (US 20220102810 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Kim teaches the lithium-sulfur secondary battery electrode binder according to claim 4. The means of measuring the particle diameter, such as measuring in an aqueous medium after neutralization to a degree of neutralization from 80 to 100 mol%, does not affect the particle diameter. Kim is silent on the particle diameter of the crosslinked polymer, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look to prior art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yongkyoung teaches a similar binder comprising a (meth)acrylic copolymer (¶ 0005). Yongkyoung also teaches that the binder may be crosslinked via a crosslinking agent (¶ 0100). Yongkyoung goes on to teach that the binder has an average particle diameter of 0.2 µm to 1.0 µm (¶ 0005), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 7.0 µm. Yongkyoung also teaches that the binder having an average particle diameter above 200 nm (0.2 µm) ensures appropriate binding while preventing the deterioration of the battery (¶ 0204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the crosslinked polymer taught by Kim to have a particle diameter within the range taught by Yongkyoung as this would predictably secure an appropriate adhesiveness and reduce the deterioration of the battery in which the binder is used.
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 HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights