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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-8 and 11-14 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.
In many of the claims, the examiner suggests amending the phrase “one or more of” to read “one or more from the group consisting of” to place the claims into a more standard Markush group language.
Claims 3-4, one occurrence.
Claims 5-8, three occurrences
Claims 11-14 are rejected for being dependent upon previously rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hornig et al (US 3,876,577).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Hornig teaches a emulsion polymer with the following structure (col. 4, Table, Latex 3):
Butadiene (structural unit B)
Acrylonitrile (structural unit C)
Methacrylamide (structural unit A)
While Hornig does not explicitly state that the polymer is a dispersant for a lithium-ion battery, given that there is no structural difference between the prior art polymer and the recited dispersant, the limitation “a dispersant for a lithium ion battery” is treated as an intended use limitation in the preamble of the claim and, therefore, does not carry much patentable weight.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Hornig teaches that the nitrile monomer is acrylonitrile, and the diene monomer is butadiene (1,3 form is the most common) (Latex 3). It is noted that the acrylate monomer is not mandatorily present.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 ,7, 9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aotani (US 2023/0250342).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Aotani teaches a dispersant (Abstract) for a lithium-ion battery ([0002]) the following structure (Table 1, Dispersant 15)
butadiene (structural unit B)
acrylonitrile (structural unit C)
N, N-dimethylacrylamide (structural unit A)
Regarding claim 5 and 7, Aotani teaches that the nitrile monomer is acrylonitrile, the diene monomer is 1,3 butadiene ([0263)] (Dispersant 15). It is noted that the acrylate monomer is not mandatorily present.
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 13, Aotani teaches that the weight average molecular weight is 300,000 (Table 1, Dispersant 15)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aotani (US 2023/0250342).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Aotani teaches a dispersant (Abstract) for a lithium-ion battery ([0002]) the following structure (Table 1, Dispersant 15)
65 % by weight butadiene (structural unit B) (molecular weight 54.1)
(67 mol %)
27 % by weight of acrylonitrile (structural unit C) (molecular weight of 53.1)
(28 mol %)
8 % by weight of N, N-dimethylacrylamide (structural unit A) (molecular weight of 99.1)
(4 mol %)
It is noted that this example recites all the components in the correct molar amounts except for structural unit A which, in the example is at 4 mol % instead of the recited 5 mol %. However, the teachings in the specification of Aotani teaches that the acrylamide component can be present in the amount from 0.1 to 10 % by mass ([0089]). It teaches that the nitrile containing unit (the acrylonitrile) can be present in the amount of 15 to 50 % by mass ([0071]). Given these teachings, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Aotani to slightly modify the example cited above to the following formulation based on the teachings within the specification which reads on the claimed invention:
65 % by weight butadiene (structural unit B) (molecular weight 54.1)
(68 mol %)
25 % by weight of acrylonitrile (structural unit C) (molecular weight of 53.1)
(27 mol %)
10 % by weight of N, N-dimethylacrylamide (structural unit A) (molecular weight of 99.1)
(6 mol %)
Aotani fails to specifically exemplify the specific dispersant. However, Aotani discloses each of the components of the each of the structural units, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the dispersant. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the dispersants suggested by a reference, including selecting materials and range of amounts from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the dispersants suggested by Aotani, including the claimed invention. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Aotani to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Aotani teaches that the nitrile monomer is acrylonitrile, the diene monomer is 1,3 butadiene ([0263)] (Dispersant 15). It is noted that the acrylate monomer is not mandatorily present.
Regarding claims 10, 12 and 14, Aotani teaches that the weight average molecular weight is 300,000 (Table 1, Dispersant 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764