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
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of preparing a binder composition for an all-solid-state-secondary battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0141786, filed on 10/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification filed on 10/27/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “a solvent”. It is unclear if it refers to a different solvent from the parent claim or if it is the one included in the binder. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that it refers to the solvent in the binder.
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) 1-12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2020/0062879 A1; hereinafter “Simpson”), in view of Oguro et al. (US 2018/0198127 A1; hereinafter “Oguro”), and further in view of Prenzel et al. (US 2014/0288242 A1; hereinafter “Prenzel”).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson discloses a binder composition ([a] curable polymer latex composition; [abstract]), comprising: a copolymer (monomer mixture; [0008]) including a conjugated diene-based monomer (at least one conjugated diene; [abstract]), an aromatic vinyl-based monomer ([s]uch optional ethylenically unsaturated compound different from any of the compounds (i)-(iii) may be any polymerizable compound containing one or more than one ethylenically unsaturated moiety/moieties. Possible ethylenically unsaturated compounds of this kind comprise for instance vinyl ethers, vinyl-aromatic compounds; [0048]), and an ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer (optionally at least one ethylenically unsaturated acid; [abstract]); a trithiocarbonate-based compound ([t]hiocarbonyl-functional compounds that may be used according to the present invention include for example, . . . trithiocarbonates; [0094]); a mercaptan-based compound (Non-limiting examples of suitable chain transfer agents are . . di-mercaptans . . . n-dodecylmercaptan and t-dodecylmercaptan are preferred; [0082]); and a solvent (aqueous reaction medium; [0093]),
Simpson fails to explicitly disclose that the binder composition is for an all-solid-state secondary battery; that a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the copolymer is 50,000 to 200,000, and that a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) is 1 to 5.
Oguro teaches a binder composition for an all-solid-state battery, [0015].
Simpson and Oguro are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymers.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the disclosure of Simpson in an all-solid-state battery, as taught by Oguro, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would enhance lower flexibility of an electrode and improve process compatibility; [0078], as suggested by Oguro.
Furthermore, Prenzel teaches, directed to a polymer, a weight-average molecular weight Mw of . . . more preferably between 100 000 and 500 000 g/mol [0065] and a molecular weight distribution of the polyacrylates features a polydispersity of 2 to 3.5, wherein polydispersity P is Mw/Mn [0065].
Simpson and Prenzel are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely polymers.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the weight average molecular weight and a molecular weight distribution of the copolymer must necessarily be at a certain range, as explicitly shown by Prenzel, and would thus reasonably understand that doing so would lower the flow viscosity, and the adhesive would exhibit less of a tendency to gel [0008], in order to avoid premature failure of the adhesive [0007], as suggested by Prenzel, and would thus find it obvious to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (100 000 and 500 000 g/mol overlaps 50,000 to 200,000) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 2, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses the binder composition of claim 1, comprising the following, based on 100 parts by weight of the copolymer: 30 to 79 parts by weight of the conjugated diene-based monomer ([t]ypically the monomer mixture comprises the at least one conjugated diene monomer (i) in an amount ranging from . . . 50 to 70 wt.-%; [0041]); 20 to 60 parts by weight of the aromatic vinyl-based monomer (the one or more than one optional ethylenically unsaturated monomer different from monomers (i) to (iii) as defined above, may typically be present in the monomer mixture used according to the present invention in an amount of up to 20 wt.-%, based on the total amount of the monomers; [0056]; wherein [p]ossible ethylenically unsaturated compounds of this kind comprise for instance . . . vinyl-aromatic compounds; [0048]); and 1 to 10 parts by weight of the ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer (the at least one optional ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer may be present in an amount of at least . . . 3 wt.-%. . . no more than 5 wt.-%, based on the total amount of the monomers; [0046]).
However, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (up to 20 wt.% overlaps at an end point with 20 to 60 parts by weight) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 3, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses that the copolymer further includes an alkyl ester-based monomer ([n]on-limiting examples are for instance esters of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid, collectively referred to herein (meth)acrylic acid. Suitable esters of (meth)acrylic acid that can be used according to the present invention include for example n-alkyl esters, iso-alkyl esters or tert-alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid; [0053]), and the binder composition includes the following, based on 100 parts by weight of the copolymer: 30 to 79 parts by weight of the conjugated diene-based monomer ([t]ypically the monomer mixture comprises the at least one conjugated diene monomer (i) in an amount ranging from . . . 50 to 70 wt.-%; [0041]); 20 to 60 parts by weight of the aromatic vinyl-based monomer (the one or more than one optional ethylenically unsaturated monomer different from monomers (i) to (iii) . . . may typically be present in the monomer mixture used according to the present invention in an amount of up to 20 wt.-%, based on the total amount of the monomers; [0056]; wherein [p]ossible ethylenically unsaturated compounds of this kind comprise for instance . . . vinyl-aromatic compounds; [0048]); 1 to 10 parts by weight of the ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer (the at least one optional ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer may be present in an amount of at least . . . 3 wt.-%. . . no more than 5 wt.-%, based on the total amount of the monomers; [0046]); and 10 parts by weight or less of the alkyl ester-based monomer (excluding 0 parts by weight) (If used, the one or more than one optional ethylenically unsaturated monomer different from monomers (i) to (iii) as defined above, may typically be present in the monomer mixture used according to the present invention in an amount of 3 to 7 wt.-%, based on the total amount of the monomers; [0056]; wherein [p]ossible ethylenically unsaturated compounds of this kind comprise for instance . . . ethylenically unsaturated esters; [0048]).
However, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (up to 20 wt.% overlaps at an end point with 20 to 60 parts by weight) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 4, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses the binder composition of claim 1, comprising the following, based on 100 parts by weight of the copolymer (based on the total amount of monomers; [0114]): 0.2 to 1.0 part by weight of the trithiocarbonate-based compound ([t]ypically the thiocarbonyl-functional compound is thus used . . . in an amount of . . . from 0.25 to 0.35 wt.-%, based on the total amount of monomers; [0114]; wherein thiocarbonyl -functional compound includes trithiocarbonates; [0094]); and 0.5 to 3.0 parts by weight of the mercaptan-based compound ([t]he quantity of chain transfer agents, if present, is . . . preferably 0.2-2.0 weight percent, based on the total amount of the monomers; [0082]; wherein chain transfer agents include di-mercaptans . . . n-dodecylmercaptan and t-dodecylmercaptan; [0082]).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0.2-2.0 weight percent significantly overlaps with 0.5 to 3.0 parts by weight) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 5, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson does not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of the trithiocarbonate- based compound and the mercaptan-based compound is 1:0.5 to 1:3. However, Simpson discloses the amounts of the trithiocarbonyl-functional compound (wherein thiocarbonyl -functional compound includes trithiocarbonates; [0094]), to be from 0.25 to 0.35 wt.-%; [0114]), and chain transfer agents (wherein chain transfer agents include di-mercaptans . . . n-dodecylmercaptan and t-dodecylmercaptan; [0082]), to be 0.2-2.0 weight percent; [0082]). Therefore, the weight ratio of the trithiocarbonate-based compound and the mercaptan-based compound may be calculated by simple rule of three; wherein Ratio= (0.2x1)/0.25 = 0.8; Ratio= (0.2x1)/0.35 = 0.6; Ratio= (2x1)/0.25 = 8; Ratio= (2x1)/0.35 = 5.7. The range of the ratio disclosed by Simpson’s invention would be from 1:0.6 to 1:8.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (1:0.6 to 1:8 significantly overlaps 1:0.5 to 1:3) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 6, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses that the conjugated diene-based monomer is one or more selected from the group consisting of 1,3-butadiene, 2,3-dimethyl-1,3-butadiene, 2-ethyl-I,3-butadiene, and 1,3-pentadiene ([t]he monomer mixture used to prepare the polymer latices according to the present invention typically comprises 1,3-butadiene, 2,3-dimethyl-1,3-butadiene, isoprene or a combination thereof as conjugated diene component (i); [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses that the aromatic vinyl-based monomer is one or more selected from the group consisting of styrene, a-methylstyrene, 2-methylstyrene, 3-methylstyrene, 4-methylstyrene, 2,4-dimethylstyrene, 2,4-diisopropylstyrene, 4- propylstyrene, 4 -cyclohexylstyrene, 4-(p-methylphenyl)styrene, 5-tert-butyl-2-rnethylstyrene, tert-butoxystyrene, 2-tert-butylstyrene, 3-tert-butylstyrene, 4-tert-butylstyrene, N,N- dimethylaminoethylstyrene, 1-vinyl-5-hexylnaphthalene, 1-vinylnaphthalene, divinylnaphthalene, divinylbenzene, trivinylbenzene, vinylbenzyldimethylamine, (4- vinylbenzyl)dimethylaminoethyl ether, vinylpyridine, vinylxylene, diphenylethylene, and halogen-substituted styrene ([r]epresentatives of suitable vinyl-aromatic monomers include, for example, styrene, t-butyl styrene, vinyltoluene, divinylbenzene, p-tert-butylstyrene, 2,4-dimethylstyrene, 2-methylstyrene, 3-methylstyrene, 4-methylstyrene, 2-ethylstyrene, 3-ethylstyrene, 4-ethylstyrene, 2,4-diisopropylstyrene, 5-t-butyl-2-methylstyrene, 2-chlorostyrene, 3-chlorostyrene, 4-chlorostyrene, 4-bromostyrene, 2-methyl-4,6-dichlorostyrene, 2,4-dibromostyrene, vinyl naphthalene, vinyltoluene, vinylxylene, 1,1-diphenylethylenes and substituted 1,1-diphenylethylenes, 1,2-diphenylethene and substituted 1,2-diphenylethylenes; [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses that the ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer is one or more selected from the group consisting of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, itaconic acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, maleic anhydride, citraconic anhydride, styrene sulfonic acid, monobutyl fumarate, monobutyl maleate, and mono-2-hydroxypropyl maleate ([p]referably the at least one ethylenically unsaturated acid monomer, if present, is selected from ethylenically unsaturated aliphatic mono- or dicarboxylic acids or anhydrides which contain from 3 to 6 carbon atoms. Non-limiting examples of suitable monocarboxylic acid monomers include acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, ethacrylic acid, 2-carboxyethyl acrylate, crotonic acid and salts thereof. Suitable dicarboxylic acid monomers include for example fumaric acid, itaconic acid, maleic acid and salts thereof. A suitable anhydride monomer is for instance maleic anhydride; [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses that the alkyl ester-based monomer is one or more selected from the group consisting of methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, and butyl acrylate (Alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acids may in particular be C1-C10 alkyl (meth)acrylates. Non-limiting examples of such (meth)acrylate monomers include methyl acrylate, isopropyl acrylate, n-propyl acrylate, n-butyl acrylate, sec-butyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, hexyl acrylate, tert-butyl acrylate, 2-ethyl-hexyl acrylate, isooctyl acrylate, 4-methyl-2-pentyl acrylate, 2-methylbutyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, n-butyl methacrylate, isobutyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, isopropyl methacrylate, n-propyl methacrylate, hexyl methacrylate, 2-ethyl-hexyl methacrylate, cyclohexyl methacrylate and cetyl methacrylate; [0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses that the trithiocarbonate-based compound is one or more selected from the group consisting of dibenzyl trithiocarbonate, dimethyl trithiocarbonate, and bis(carboxymethyl) trithiocarbonate ([t]hiocarbonyl-functional compounds that may be used . . . trithiocarbonates; [0094]; Trithiocarbonates can be exemplified by ethylene trithiocarbonate or S,S′-dimethyl trithiocarbonate; [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses that the mercaptan-based compound is one or more selected from the group consisting of n-octyl mercaptan, n-dodecyl mercaptan, and t- dodecyl mercaptan ([a]lternatively, or additionally 2-mercaptoethanol, 3-mercaptopropionic acid and C1-C12 alkyl mercaptans may be used, whereof n-dodecylmercaptan and t-dodecylmercaptan are preferred; [0082]).
Regarding claim 12, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson discloses subjecting a monomer mixture as defined above to free-radical emulsion polymerization in an aqueous reaction medium; [0069].
However, Simpson fails to explicitly disclose that the solvent is one or more selected from the group consisting of benzene, toluene, xylene, hexane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, ethylcyclohexane, nonane, decane, decalin, tetralin, dodecane, dibromomethane, dichloromethane, chloroform, butyl butyrate, hexyl butyrate, and isobutyl isobutyrate.
Oguro teaches, directed to a binder, that [p]referable examples of the organic solvent which can be used for the solvent exchange include a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon such as cyclopentane or cyclohexane; an aromatic hydrocarbon such as toluene or xylene; [0080].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a solvent from the group taught by Oguro within the invention of Simpson, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would allow the solvent exchange and dehydration operation to be performed at a predetermined temperature under reduced pressure [0077], as suggested by Oguro.
Regarding claim 17, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson fails to disclose a slurry composition for a cathode, comprising the binder composition of A slurry composition for a cathode, comprising the binder composition of and a cathode active material.
Oguro teaches using the binder composition for an all-solid-state battery of the present invention as a binder in at least one layer, preferably all layers of at least a positive electrode active material layer, a negative electrode active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer; [0082]. Oguro further teaches a positive electrode active material layer slurry composition that includes a binder [0161].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the disclosed binder in a slurry composition for a cathode comprising a cathode active material, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent the positive electrode active material from falling from an electrode without inhibiting a battery reaction [0119], as suggested by Oguro.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson fails to disclose a slurry composition for a solid electrolyte, comprising the binder composition of claim 1, and a solid electrolyte; wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Oguro teaches a binder for a solid electrolyte layer [0097], and a solid electrolyte layer slurry composition [0100] for an all-solid-state-battery [title]. Oguro further teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte material [0090].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the binder in a slurry composition for a solid electrolyte that is sulfide-based, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would increase ion conductivity [0092], as suggested by Oguro.
Regarding claim 20, Simpson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Simpson fails to disclose an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode, and a solid electrolyte, wherein at least one of the cathode and the solid electrolyte is prepared by applying a slurry composition including the binder composition of claim 1 and drying a solvent.
Oguro teaches an all-solid-state battery including a positive electrode having the positive electrode active material layer, a negative electrode having the negative electrode active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer disposed between these positive and negative electrode active material layers, [0082]. Oguro further teaches that [t]he solid electrolyte layer is formed by applying a solid electrolyte layer slurry composition containing solid electrolyte particles and a binder for a solid electrolyte layer [0084]; and a drying condition is usually adjusted such that an organic solvent volatilizes; [0146].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the disclosed binder in an all-solid-state secondary battery, with the reasonable expectation that doing so would enhance lower flexibility of an electrode and improve process compatibility [0078], as suggested by Oguro.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang et al. (US 2018/0351177 A1) discloses a binder composition for a secondary battery which exhibits much higher adhesion and low resistance.
Sasaki et al. (US 2016/0126551 A1) discloses a binder composition for a lithium ion secondary battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. 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.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/29/2026
