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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received 07/08/2026:
Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application. Claim 15 is new. Claims 1,4,6, and 10 have been amended.
The previous objections to the specification and claims have been overcome in light of the amendments.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 have been overcome in light of the amendments
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because no evidence of a“heterocyclyl” group exists. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “heterocyclyl” should be corrected in at least P7.68 as no evidence of a compound “heterocyclyl” exists. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 recite “…a C5-30 heterocyclyl…” wherein no evidence of such group exist. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-14 are objected to for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 20170309916) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20120330589)
Regarding claim 1, Toyoda teaches a binder, comprising a polymer obtained by polymerizing at least following components:
a first component of a first monomer of butadiene (P49-50.57),
a third component comprising a hydrophilic monomer, i.e., acrylic acid (P41-42.57.139; Table 1).
Toyoda is silent in teaching the claimed second component; however, Toyoda teaches no specific limitations are put on the composition of the polymer, but examples of the acid group monomer unit include monocarboxylic acids of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, and crotonic acid, and examples of dicarboxylic acids include maleic acid, fumaric acid, and itaconic acid, wherein two or more acid groups may be used in combination, preferably from monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acids (P39.42.46-48).
Ryu, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a binder for use in a battery comprising similar components to those of Toyoda and formed by polymerization (P9-10.19-20.23-24.26-27).
Ryu also teaches including monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acid monomers because they show excellent adhesion. Examples of the monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acid monomers that may be used in combination include the same as those of Ryu, with a monocarboxylic of acrylic acid, and dicarboxylic acid monomers including maleic acid, citraconic acid, and glutaconic acid (P19-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a second component and a third component, wherein the second component is a dicarboxylic acid and the third component is a monocarboxylic acid, as taught by Toyoda, wherein the third component is the acrylic acid and the second component is glutaconic acid, as taught by Ryu as a known dicarboxylic acid used in binders to improve adhesion and can be combined with acrylic acid, and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution (of a dicarboxylic of Toyoda with one of Ryu), and the results are reasonably predictable.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. MPEP 2144.06
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 2, modified Toyoda teaches a binder of similar polymeric structure wherein based on a total molar amount of the first component, the second component, and the third component, a molar proportion of the first component is in a range of 30%-55%, a molar proportion of the second component is in a range of 15%-45%, and a molar proportion of the third component is in a range of 15%-30%, for example, in Example 1 the first component is 58.5%, the second component is 22 mol%, and the third component is 19 mol% (P51-56.60.139-152; Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Modified Toyoda teaches the amount of each monomer is a result effective variable, wherein with respect to mass the amount of the first monomer (butadiene) is between 10 mass% and 60 mass%, wherein less than 10% does not allow the binder to fully capture a transition metal, and maintaining an amount less than 60% improves elasticity, strength, and adherence (P49-50), and wherein the second/third monomer (acid components) is combined in an amount between 10 mass% and 30 mass% wherein greater than 10 mass % enables favorable swelling and improves the binding capacity and no greater than 30 mass % suppresses excessive viscosity elevation improving cycle characteristics (P46-48).
A skilled artisan would therefore seek to find a ratio of each component that optimized adherence and improves cycle characteristics. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to find a ratio of the components that optimizes binding capacity without excessive viscosity and improves strength such that the molar proportions fall within the claimed range. Furthermore, absent objective evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter, it is considered an obvious expedient to determine an optimum or workable range. MPEP 2144 “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”
Regarding claim 3, modified Toyoda teaches the binder is a gel polymer, or a cross-linkable product that swells (P13.28.34.64.78)
Regarding claim 6, modified Toyoda teaches a solid content of the binder, or the particulate particle amount of the binder is in a range of 0.5% to 10% by mass, overlapping the claimed range of 4% to 10%, to improve electrical characteristics and but prevent pores from being blocked (P72).
Regarding claim 8, modified Toyoda teaches the pH value of the binder is in a range of 3 to 7 (P64.167; Table 1), overlapping the claimed range of 5.0 to 8.0. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 9, modified Toyoda teaches a negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode diaphragm, or a functional layer, wherein the negative electrode diaphragm, or a functional layer comprises the binder according to claim 1 (P82-84.86.99)
Regarding claim 10, modified Toyoda is silent in teaching the negative electrode sheet is configured such that when the negative electrode sheet is wound on an object with a diameter of 32mm, 25mm, or 16mm, there is no crack on a surface of the negative electrode sheet.
It is noted that while features may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the negative electrode sheet, comprising the same structure as positively recited in claims 1 and 9, would be configured such that when the negative electrode sheet is wound on an object with a diameter of 32mm, 25mm, or 16mm no cracks occur on the surface of the negative electrode sheet as claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 11, modified Toyoda teaches a secondary battery, comprising the binder according to claim 1 (P2.25-32)
Regarding claim 12, modified Toyoda teaches a battery module comprising the secondary battery according to claim 11 (P147).
Regarding claim 13, modified Toyoda is silent in teaching a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 11; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a battery pack of the battery module to increase capacity. Additionally, the court has held that the selection of a known entity based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 14, modified Toyoda is silent in teaching a power consumption device comprising the secondary battery according to claim 11, but teaches that lithium batteries are useful for a wide variety of applications and have the ability to repeatedly be charged and discharged (P2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the battery in a power consumption device as a way to charge it via a battery with compact size and high energy density. Additionally, the court has held that the selection of a known entity based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 15, Toyoda teaches a binder, comprising a polymer obtained by polymerizing at least following components:
a first component of a first monomer of butadiene (P49-50.57), a third component comprising a hydrophilic monomer, i.e., acrylic acid (P41-42.57.139; Table 1).
Toyoda is silent in teaching the claimed second component; however, Toyoda teaches no specific limitations are put on the composition of the polymer, but examples of the acid group monomer unit include monocarboxylic acids of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, and crotonic acid, and examples of dicarboxylic acids include maleic acid, fumaric acid, and itaconic acid, wherein two or more acid groups may be used in combination, preferably from monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acids (P39.42.46-48).
Ryu, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a binder for use in a battery comprising similar components to those of Toyoda and formed by polymerization (P9-10.19-20.23-24.26-27).
Ryu also teaches including monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acid monomers because they show excellent adhesion. Examples of the monocarboxylic and dicarboxylic acid monomers that may be used in combination include the same as those of Ryu, with a monocarboxylic of acrylic acid, and dicarboxylic acid monomers including maleic acid, citraconic acid, and glutaconic acid (P19-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a second component and a third component, wherein the second component is a dicarboxylic acid and the third component is a monocarboxylic acid, as taught by Toyoda, wherein the third component is the acrylic acid and the second component is glutaconic acid, as taught by Ryu as a known dicarboxylic acid used in binders to improve adhesion and can be combined with acrylic acid, and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution (of a dicarboxylic of Toyoda with one of Ryu), and the results are reasonably predictable.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. MPEP 2144.06
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Toyoda in view of Ryu as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20190372121).
Regarding claim 4, modified Toyoda teaches suppressing excessive viscosity elevation of an electrode when including a binder to preserve stability (P7-9.13).
Modified Toyoda is silent in teaching the viscosity of the binder is in a range of 70000 mPas to 500000 mPas; however, Chen, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches mitigating excessive viscosity increase in a battery (P4.35).
Chen teaches the viscosity of components such as polymers used within an electrode/battery to be sufficiently low for manufacturing of electrodes for batteries should be between 10000 mPas to 150000 mPas, or 90000 mPas to 150000 mPas (P35-36.80.84.107-108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the viscosity of the binder of modified Toyoda in a range of 10000 mPas to 150000 mPas, overlapping the claimed range of 70000 mPas to 500000 mPas, as taught by Chen, to have good coating quality improving processing. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Toyoda in view of Ryu as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakizaka et al. (US 20110311870).
Regarding claim 5, Toyoda is silent in teaching a weight average molecular weight of the binder is in a range of 300,000 to 1,000,000; however, Wakizaka, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches using a binder made through polymerization including monomers such as flexible alkenes with rigid alkenes with an aryl ring group, and a hydrophilic monomer (P20-36.64-77).
Wakizaka teaches when using the binder, in the same application as taught by Toyoda, the weight average molecular weight should be between 10000 and 10000000 to give excellent strength (P77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a weight average molecular weight of the binder of modified Toyoda in a range of 10000 and 10000000, overlapping the claimed range of 300,000 to 1,000,000, to have excellent strength, as taught by Wakizaka. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I Furthermore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Toyoda in view of Ryu as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Thielen et al. (US 20180191026).
Regarding claim 7, modified Toyoda is silent in teaching a glass transition temperature Tg of the binder is in a range of 60-200°C; however, Thielen, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches using a binder, or conductive polymer with adhesion-promoting properties, made through polymerization including monomers such as flexible alkenes with rigid alkenes with an aryl ring group, and a hydrophilic monomer (P19-87).
Thielen teaches having the binder with a glass transition temperature over 100oC to enhance the shear modulus of the polymer improving contact and conductivity between layers (P18-20.29-32.78-81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the glass transition temperature of the binder of modified Toyoda above 100oC, overlapping the claimed range of 60-200°C, to enhance adhesion and thus contact and conductivity, as taught by Thielen. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I Furthermore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments. Examiner notes that none of the examples in the disclosure read on the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zha et al (US 20200263359) teaches a binder, or acrylic-based polymer that may comprise first component alkene, second component such as styrene, and third component such as acrylic acid (P89-92.106).
Bixler et al. (US 4921934 A) teaches a binder of the composition of claim 1 with the claimed properties.
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights