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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 05/15/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7–9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 is/are amended; claim(s) 3–5, 10, 13–15, 19, and 20 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 02/18/26 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–3, 5, 7–13, 15, and 17–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20120189911 A1) (Kang) in view of Kang et al. (US 20180351177 A1) (Kang II).
Regarding claims 1–3, 7–9, 11–13, 17, and 18, 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).
The limitation “the polymer comprising repeating units derived from a first monomer, a second monomer, a third monomer, and a fourth monomer” is considered a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113), where the implied structure is simply four monomers containing structure necessary to be “derived from” the respectively recited compounds (i.e., Examiner notes that “derived from” does not seem to positively require the specifically recited first–fourth monomers).
Regardless, Kang discloses that, based on favorable binding properties and binding durability (¶ 0016), the polymer may be polymerized from, e.g., 1) a vinyl monomer such as styrene (¶ 0016, 0017), a 2) linear acrylate monomer (see list of chain acrylates in ¶ 0016, 0019), and 3) a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer such as methyl acrylate (¶ 0016, 0018), where the polymer is 4) cross-linked by an amine compound such as diallylamine (¶ 0024–0027).
As seen in the broad possible list of linear acrylates in ¶ 0016, the linear acrylates represent a functional class similar to or derived from the instant second monomer comprising an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid or an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid salt, though Kang fails to explicitly disclose, in one embodiment, four monomers, wherein the first monomer comprises an aromatic alkenyl compound, the second monomer comprises an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid or an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid salt, the third monomer comprises an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid ester, and the fourth monomer comprises a substituted or unsubstituted compound containing an amine group and at least two alkenyl groups.
Kang II teaches an analogous battery electrode binder composition (Title) including an acrylic copolymer comprising a (meth)acrylic acid ester-based monomer such as various linear acrylates (¶ 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).
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, a linear acrylate, a (meth)acrylic acid ester such as methyl acrylate, and diallylamine with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder with suitable binding properties and durability, as suggested by Kang. It would have been further obvious to incorporate the second monomer/linear acrylate as a carboxylic acid salt such as lithium acrylate with the reasonable expectation of achieving higher electrical conductivity and, thus, reduced electrode resistance, as taught by Kang II.
Thus, modified Kang would disclose or render obvious a polymer comprising repeating units derived from a first monomer comprising an aromatic alkenyl compound (Kang’s styrene, further reading on claims 7 and 17), a second monomer (Kang II’s lithium acrylate, further reading on claims 8 and 18), a third monomer comprising an olefinic unsaturated carboxylic acid ester (Kang’s methyl acrylate, further reading on claim 9), and a fourth monomer comprising an unsubstituted compound containing an amine group as well as two alkenyl groups (Kang’s diallylamine, further reading on claims 2, 3, 12, and 13).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified 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 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, modified 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 (the linear 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). Moreover, as addressed above, Kang II teaches that the alkali-modified linear acrylate (such as lithium acrylate, the modified second monomer) reduces resistance (¶ 0020).
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, modified 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 with the reasonable expectation of achieving a suitable electrode with the desired binding properties.
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) in view of Kang et al. (US 20180351177 A1) (Kang II), as applied to claims 3 and 13, further in view of Arikawa et al. (US 20140356708 A1) (Arikawa).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, modified 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, in teaching a battery negative electrode with an organic compound attached to an active material (Abstract), is directed to a pertinent problem-solving area of selecting a suitable allylamine derivative to use within organic compounds and polymers in a battery electrode. Arikawa teaches that the organic compound may include an allylamine-based polymer formed from monomers such as diallylamine or N-methyldiallylamine (¶ 0096).
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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Kang fails to disclose all four monomers in one embodiment. Examiner agrees and respectfully submits that Kang’s general disclosure plus Kang II’s teachings remedy this deficiency.
Applicant further argues that Kang only treats the allylamine as a cross-linking agent and never motivates including a three-monomer backbone of vinyl + linear acrylate + ester. Claim 1/11, however, requires “a polymer”, regardless of how the monomers are arranged, so the cross-linking amine would meet the fourth monomer, and Kang mentions that the “backbone” may contain a) a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer (e.g., methyl acrylate, i.e., third monomer) and b) at least one of an acrylate monomer, vinyl monomer, and nitrile monomer (¶ 0016). Thus, as discussed above, selecting an acrylate (specifically lithium acrylate from Kang II as carboxylic acid salt/second monomer) plus vinyl (e.g., styrene as aromatic alkene/first monomer) from this narrow set would seem to require only routine skill and would predictably yield a successful binder with balanced binding properties, durability, and conductivity.
Although Applicant further argues that because there is “not a specific reason why a person of ordinary skill would have selected these particular members,” the combination stems from impermissible hindsight, Examiner respectfully observes no comparative data of record showing the recited four monomers—or even the “backbone” of the first three—to be superior to Kang’s broader list of monomers (see also MPEP 716.02(e), where unexpected results must compare to the closest prior art), meaning no motivation to select the specific compounds appears needed.
Indeed, Applicant’s one comparative example seems to merely test the absence of the diallylamine. Importantly, however, Kang recognizes that cross-linking will occur via some two compounds (¶ 0014) and lists amines as one preferred option of two for the smaller-MW cross-linker (¶ 0024), of which diallylamine is one of only two amines listed (¶ 0025). Thus, Kang recognizes that some “fourth monomer” will be present. As there is no evidence discrediting Kang’s other small-MW cross-linkers or the broader options for the “backbone”, the case of obviousness appears to remain proper because the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success from selecting any of Kang’s monomers, making this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that Kang does not recognize the amine cross-linker as a “co-equal ‘monomer.’” Again, however, claim 1/11 merely requires “repeating units derived from” the four monomers at unbounded concentrations, so the cross-linker would fit the “fourth monomer”, absent special definition.
Applicant next argues that Kang fails to disclose a carboxylic acid or salt as the second monomer, instead disclosing an optional acrylamide-based or unsaturated mono-carboxylic acid monomer in the mixture but not in the polymer. Such seems to mischaracterize the Office’s position, however, because the carboxylic acid/salt second monomer was obtained by modifying Kang’s linear acrylate to be Kang II’s lithium acrylate.
Applicant finally argues that Kang does not identify a problem solved by adding acid/salt monomers, and such substitution would change polymer polarity, latex stability, and electrode slurry interactions, which would make the substitution non-routine. However, this language is not in the specification, and there is no evidence of record that such would necessarily occur, making this argument appear speculative. Rather, Kang II plainly teaches that alkalating linear acrylates (such as the ones Kang exemplifies) reduces electrode resistance, and the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to produce a successful binder from this substitution given Kang II recognizes alkalated linear acrylates as suitable monomers for acrylic-based binders.
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 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
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights