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, POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE AND BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/297,219 Art Unit 1727 March 12, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on January 20, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12-24 are currently pending. Claims 1-2, 8 and 10 have been amended. Claims 3-4, 9 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 21-24 are newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the different species recite mutually exclusive characteristics of such species, such as the different R1, R2, and R3 groups.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 1-20 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s response defining what Rs is referring to.
Claims 2 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. Claim 1 recites certain monomers for R1, R2, and R3 and claim 2 then recites wherein R1, R2, and R3 are different monomers. It is unclear if claim 2 is further defining the R1, R2, and R3 of claim 1; or of the R1, R2, and R3 of claim 2 are present in addition to R1, R2, and R3 of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu on claims 1-4 and 8-20 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 Chu on claims 5-7 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (CN 112175134 A; as found in IDS dated 01/04/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1-2, 12-13, 18 and 20, Chu discloses a battery, comprising a positive electrode plate having a binder, wherein the binder comprises: 10 parts by mass of hydroxyethyl acrylate (monomer A), 0.2 parts by mass of N-hydroxymethyl acrylamide (monomer C), and 2.5 parts by mass of acrylic acid (monomer B) and wherein each monomer was converted to a cross-linked structure of A-B-C ( at least one repeating unit represented by claimed formula 1; a repeating unit represented by claimed formula 2; and a repeating unit represented by claimed formula 3 (Abstract and Example 1 paragraph [0145]). Chu discloses the same R2 and R3 of the claims and a very similar R1 (acrylic acid vs methacrylic acid). The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compound 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 modify the binder of Chu to read on the claims because Chu teaches that a battery with improved cycle performance and life is provided (paragraph [0007]).
As to Claims 5-7, Chu discloses wherein the amounts of the monomers A, B and C are result-effective variables in providing improved cycle performance and life in a battery (Abstract and paragraphs [0048-0055 and 0066]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the binder of Chu to comprise the claimed average molecular weight because Chu teaches that a battery with improved cycle performance and life is provided (paragraph [0007]).
As to Claim 8, Chu discloses wherein the average molecular weight is 100,000-1,000,000 (paragraph [0060]). In addition, it is the position of the Office that the binder of Chu intrinsically comprises the claimed decomposition temperature given that the structure and materials of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 10, Chu teaches the same materials and structure of the binder of claim 1. It is the position of the Office that the binder of Chu intrinsically comprises the claimed characteristics given that the structure and materials of the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 14, Chu discloses using water as a solvent (paragraph [0145]).
As to Claim 15, Chu discloses a solid content of 4-10 wt % (paragraph [0058]).
As to Claim 16, Chu discloses wherein the viscosity is 6000-12000 mPa s (paragraph [0059]).
As to Claim 17, Chu discloses wherein the pH value is 5 or 6 or 7 (paragraph [0080]).
As to Claim 19, Chu discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a collector having an active material applied thereto which comprises the claimed binder in an amount of 1.5 wt% (paragraphs [0100-0102]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Chu does not teach the same green and blue groups of claims 1-2 (claims 1-2).
b) Chu does not teach the same technical problems addressed by the present invention such as providing an aqueous binder with good dispersibility, good self-cross-linking, strong bonding performance, and good flexibility (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) The Response is submitted in black and white colors and therefore any of the colors discussed by the Applicant cannot be seen or understood. In addition, Chu discloses the same R2 and R3 of claim 2 and a very similar R1 as described in the rejection above. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compound have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, see MPEP 2144.09, I.
b) In response to applicant's argument that Chu does not recognize the claimed results, 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). Chu provides proper teaching and motivation to arrive at the claimed invention.
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