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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to for the following informality: in lines 3 and 4, “a substituent on an alkenyl group” is suggested to read “a substituent on at least one of [[an]] the alkenyl groups” to denote proper recitation from parent claims 1 and 11 (as clearly intended by specification, e.g., ¶ 0012–0014 and 0049). Appropriate correction is required.
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 2–4 and 12–14 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.
Claims 2 and 12 each recites “wherein the fourth monomer comprises substituted or unsubstituted diallylamine; and in a case of substitution, a substituent on an amine group” in lines 1–3. Particularly because diallylamine includes only one amine group (per below), it is unclear if “an amine group” is meant to be the same as or distinct from the “amine group” of parent claims 1 and 11.
PNG
media_image1.png
50
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
¶ 0012–0014 and 0049 detail that the fourth monomer may be selected from substituted or unsubstituted diallylamine, and, in the context of substitution, a substituent on an amine group of the diallylamine may be one of claim 2/12’s groups and, thus, appears to reference the single amine group in diallylamine. Thus, for this Office Action claims 2 and 12 will be interpreted to require substituted or unsubstituted diallylamine, and, in a case of substitution, the (single) amine group in diallylamine will be required to be substituted with one of the recited groups, as suggested by ¶ 0012–0014 and 0049.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1–3, 5, 10–13, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20120189911 A1) (Kang).
Regarding claims 1–3 and 11–13, Kang discloses an electrochemical device (battery, Abstract and exs.), comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, an electrolyte solution, and a separator, (e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0077 (note that separator is necessarily present for storing ¶ 0077’s electrolyte, as in ¶ 0051)) wherein the positive electrode plate contains a binder (¶ 0077 and, e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0062), the binder comprises a polymer (¶ 0062).
Regarding the limitation “the polymer is polymerized from a first monomer, a second monomer, a third monomer, and a fourth monomer”, such is a product-by-process limitation. Though product-by-process claims may be defined by the process, patentability is based on the product versus its process of manufacture (MPEP 2113). In this case, the implied structure is a polymer containing the recited four monomers (see spec., e.g., ¶ 0048 and 0115–0117).
Kang discloses that, based on favorable binding properties and binding durability (¶ 0016), the polymer may be polymerized from a vinyl monomer such as styrene (¶ 0016, 0017), a linear acrylate monomer such as lauryl acrylate (¶ 0016, 0019), and a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer such as methyl acrylate (¶ 0016, 0018), where the polymer is cross-linked by an amine compound such as diallylamine (¶ 0024–0027). However, Kang fails to explicitly disclose, in one embodiment, four monomers, wherein the first monomer, the second monomer, and the third monomer each are independently selected from an aromatic alkenyl compound, an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid, an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid salt, or an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid ester; and the first monomer, the second monomer, and the third monomer are different from each other; and the fourth monomer comprises a substituted or unsubstituted compound containing an amine group and at least two alkenyl groups.
Considering that Kang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrode binders including amino-based monomers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed a polymer of, e.g., styrene, lauryl acrylate, methyl acrylate, and diallylamine, as suggested by Kang, with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder with suitable binding properties and durability, as suggested by Kang (see, e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.) and 2144.07).
Thus, Kang would disclose a polymer polymerized from four monomers, wherein the first monomer is an aromatic alkenyl compound (styrene); each of the second and third monomers is an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid ester (lauryl acrylate and methyl acrylate, respectively), the first through third monomers are different from each other (per above); and the fourth monomer comprises an unsubstituted compound containing an amine group as well as two alkenyl groups (diallylamine).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claims 2, 3, 12, and 13; i.e., the fourth monomer comprises unsubstituted diallylamine (per above).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kang discloses the binder according to claim 1 and the electrochemical device according to claim 11, wherein a mass percent of the fourth monomer in the polymer is preferably 0.1–5 wt% (see cross-linker’s wt%, ¶ 0028), falling within 0.1–8 wt%.
Assuming, arguendo, that Kang’s fourth monomer’s wt% did not necessarily fall within 0.1–8 wt% given that Kang requires at least two cross-linkers (Abstract; see also higher- and lower-MW cross-linkers in ¶ 0022–0027), Kang further discloses that when the amount of the cross-linker is too small, the electrode’s volume variation cannot be controlled during (dis)charge, whereas when the amount of the cross-linker is too high, it is difficult to impart high adhesiveness (¶ 0028). Further, Kang discloses that if the content of smaller-MW cross-linker (i.e., the diallylamine, ¶ 0023 and 0025) is too low, cycle characteristics may not be improved, whereas if the content of larger-MW is too low, little improvement in the binder’s flexibility may be expected (¶ 0028). To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the wt% of the diallylamine cross-linker, i.e., fourth monomer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Kang discloses the binder according to claim 1 and the electrochemical device according to claim 11.
Kang further discloses that the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer (such as methyl acrylate, i.e., third monomer) may constitute 10–99 wt% (¶ 0017) and that the Group (b) monomer—including the vinyl monomer (such as styrene, i.e., first monomer) and the acrylate monomer (such as lauryl acrylate, i.e., second monomer)—may constitute a total of 1–60 wt% but discloses that these ranges may be altered based on each monomer’s characteristics and/or desired physical properties of the binder (¶ 0017).
The 10–99 wt% third monomer overlaps the recited 5–45.5 wt% such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder with suitable (meth)acrylic acid ester content and adequate physical properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Additionally, regarding the first and second monomers’ weight contents of 5–46 wt% and 0.5–89.9 wt%, respectively, the skilled artisan would recognize that, when employing a polymer including the instant first through third monomers, each of the first and second monomers must necessarily be incorporated at some wt% for the polymer to function as desired (as suggested by ¶ 0017). The artisan would further understand, then, that only two solutions broadly exist based on the total of 1–60 wt%: the first and second monomers may be incorporated at the same weight content or at differing contents. In determining the optimal contents of each of the first and second monomers based on the desired physical properties of the binder, it would have been obvious to routinely investigate employing the monomers at the same content—and, thus, first and second contents each at ~ 30 wt% of the polymer, which would fall within 5–46 wt% and 0.5–89.9 wt%, respectively—with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful binder with suitable physical characteristics (see, e.g., MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Moreover, Kang further discloses that the cross-linker (such as diallylamine, i.e., fourth monomer) preferably constitutes 0.1–5 wt% because when the amount of the cross-linker is too small, the electrode’s volume variation cannot be controlled during (dis)charge, whereas when the amount of the cross-linker is too high, it is difficult to impart high adhesiveness (¶ 0028). Further, Kang discloses that if the content of smaller-MW cross-linker (i.e., the diallylamine, ¶ 0023 and 0025) is too low, cycle characteristics may not be improved, whereas if the content of larger-MW is too low, little improvement in the binder’s flexibility may be expected (¶ 0028). In balancing these effects, then, while considering the desired physical properties of the binder, the skilled artisan would necessarily have had to account for the other monomers’ weight ratios relative to the fourth monomer’s, meaning it would have been obvious to arrive at the first through third monomers’ respectively recited weight contents by routinely optimizing the wt% of the cross-linker/fourth monomer and, thus, necessarily optimizing the first through third monomers’ weight contents (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 20, Kang discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 11.
Kang further discloses that the binder may be used in the negative electrode (¶ 0036), which may include a negative active material layer atop a negative current collector (active mixture, ¶ 0037), where the active layer includes a negative active material and a conductive agent alongside the binder (¶ 0037). though Kang fails to explicitly embody such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely employ a negative electrode plate comprising a negative current collector and a negative active material layer, where the active layer comprises a negative active material, a conductive agent, and the binder, as suggested by Kang, with the reasonable expectation of achieving a suitable electrode with the desired binding properties, as suggested by Kang (MPEP 2143 (A.)).
Moreover, regarding the binder’s wt% within the electrode, Kang discloses that the binder may be included at relatively small amounts of the electrode (see 2 wt% in pos. electrode in Ex. 1, ¶ 0074), further disclosing that the conductive agent may constitute 0.01–30 wt% (¶ 0031). More importantly, however, the skilled artisan would recognize that the active material, in providing capacity via ion (de)intercalation (¶ 0038), should account for the vast majority of the electrode (as seen in ¶ 0074’s exemplary ratio), while the artisan would also have to account for the conductive agent’s afforded conductivity and the binder’s afforded binding properties and durability, as discussed above. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the binder’s wt% in the electrode (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20120189911 A1) (Kang), as applied to claims 3 and 13, in view of Arikawa et al. (US 20140356708 A1) (Arikawa).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kang discloses the binder according to claim 3 and the electrochemical device according to claim 13.
As noted in claims 1 and 11, Kang exemplarily discloses multiple amine compounds as cross-linkers, including diallylamine (¶ 0027), yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to diallylamine to achieve the desired cross-linking, Kang fails to explicitly disclose that the fourth monomer comprises N-alkyldiallylamine, which comprises at least one of N-methyldiallylamine or N-ethyldiallylamine.
Arikawa teaches a battery negative electrode with an organic compound attached to an active material (Abstract), where the organic compound may include an allylamine-based polymer formed from monomers such as diallylamine or N-methyldiallylamine (¶ 0096).
Arikawa is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely selecting a suitable allylamine derivative to use within organic compounds and polymers in a battery electrode.
As Arikawa recognizes diallylamine and N-methyldiallylamine as equivalent monomers in an amine-based organic compound in a battery electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Kang’s diallylamine with Arikawa’s N-methyldiallylamine with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder (MPEP 2143 (B.) and 2144.06 (II)).
Claim(s) 6–9 and 16–18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20120189911 A1) (Kang), as applied to claims 1 and 11, in view of Kang et al. (US 20180351177 A1) (Kang II).
Regarding claims 6–9 and 16–18, Kang discloses the binder according to claim 1 and the electrochemical device according to claim 11, wherein the first monomer comprises an aromatic alkenyl compound of styrene (per above, meeting claims 6, 7, 16, and 17), and the third monomer comprises an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid ester of methyl acrylate (per above, meeting claims 6 and 9).
As further discussed above, Kang discloses many possible acrylate/“second” monomers, including lauryl acrylate (¶ 0019), but Kang fails to explicitly disclose that the second monomer comprises an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid or an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid salt.
Kang II teaches a battery electrode binder composition (Title) including an acrylic copolymer comprising a (meth)acrylic acid ester-based monomer such as lauryl acrylate (¶ 0038, 0042), wherein the (meth)acrylic acid ester-based monomer may form an alkali metal salt such as lithium acrylate (¶ 0049). Kang II teaches that the alkali metal ion may impart additional electrical conductivity so that the electrode exhibits low resistance (¶ 0020).
Kang II is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely acrylate-based binders in battery electrodes.
As Kang II recognizes neutral (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer (such as lauryl acrylate) and an alkali-metal salt of such monomer (such as lithium acrylate) as equivalent monomers in an acrylate-based electrode binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Kang’s lauryl acrylate with Kang II’s lithium acrylate with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful monomer/polymer, as suggested by Kang II (MPEP 2143 (B.) and 2144.06 (II)). Moreover, in doing so, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to achieve higher electrical conductivity and, thus, reduced electrode resistance, as taught by Kang II.
Thus, modified Kang would further disclose that the second monomer comprises an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid salt of lithium acrylate (per Kang II, meeting claims 6, 8, and 18).
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210280872 A1: battery electrode binder composition including an acidic-group-containing polymer (A) including acrylic monomers and that may include vinyl monomers like styrene, as well as an amine-group-containing polymer (B) of polyallylamine.
US 20040062989 A1: battery electrode binder polymer that may include vinyl, acrylic, and dialkenylamine monomers.
US 20040092632 A1: latex adhesive including a copolymer of methyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate, and methacrylic acid combined with an allylamine salt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/12/2026