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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “limonenene” should be corrected to “limonene” in at least P12.24.74.91.207-208 and Table 1 of the disclosure as no evidence of a compound “limonenene” exists. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…at least following components…” and should be corrected to “…at least the following components…”. Claim 4 recites “…500000mPa.s.” and should be corrected to “…500000 mPa·s.”. Claim 10 recites “…32mm, 25mm, or 16mm…” and should be corrected to “…32 mm, 25 mm, or 16 mm…” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-14 are objected to for depending on claim 1.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “…a first component comprising a flexible monomer selected from a C4-18 alkene…”. The disclosure teaches an example of this flexible monomer is styrene (P80; PGPUB US20180191026A1). Claim 1 also recites “…a second component comprising a rigid monomer…” wherein the disclosure teaches an example of a rigid monomer is styrene (P88; PGPUB). Therefore, the terms “flexible” and “rigid” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites “…a solid content of the binder is in a range of 4% to 10%”. The term “in a range of…%” is indefinite as it does not recite if the percentage is with respect to weight, volume, molarity, etc. The disclosure teaches the range is with regards to weight (P104-107; PGPUB). Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 20170309916).
Regarding claim 1, Toyoda teaches a binder, comprising a polymer obtained by polymerizing at least following components:
a first component comprising a flexible monomer selected from C4-18 alkene, or conjugated diene monomer i.e., 1-3 butadiene (P49-50.57)
a second component comprising a rigid monomer, the rigid monomer comprising at least one of:
an alkene having a rigid group, wherein the rigid group is selected from C5-20 aryl, C4-8 saturated or unsaturated ring group, and C5-30 heterocyclyl, or an aromatic vinyl monomer unit i.e., styrene (P52.557); and a third component comprising a hydrophilic monomer, wherein the hydrophilic monomer contains a hydrophilic group, and the hydrophilic group is selected from carboxyl, hydroxyl, amine, aldehyde, alcohol, amino, and amido, or an acid group containing monomer i.e., acrylic acid (P41-42.57.139; Table 1). Selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07. 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, Takuna teaches 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. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 3, Takuna teaches the binder is a gel polymer, or a cross-linkable product that swells (P13.28.34.64.78)
Regarding claim 6, 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, 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, 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, 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, Toyoda teaches a secondary battery, comprising the binder according to claim 1 (P2.25-32)
Regarding claim 12, Toyoda teaches a battery module comprising the secondary battery according to claim 11 (P147).
Regarding claim 13, 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, 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
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20190372121).
Regarding claim 4, Toyoda teaches suppressing excessive viscosity elevation of an electrode when including a binder to preserve stability (P7-9.13).
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 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 Toyoda 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 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 Toyoda as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Thielen et al. (US 20180191026).
Regarding claim 7, 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 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
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.
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
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights