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 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 4, 7 - 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for their reliance upon claims which have been canceled.
Claim 4 relies upon Claim 3, which has been canceled. Further, because it is unclear if this incorporates the limitations of Claim 1, it is not possible to examine this claim upon the merits, and the claim is incomplete. See MPEP 608.01 (n)(V). Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the “second structural unit,” making it unclear what this term refers to.
Claims 7 – 9, and 12 depend upon the canceled claim 6. These are also not possible to examine on the merits, because the invention recited in Claim 1 is a product, and Claim 7 recites a method according to Claim 6. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the “second polymer,” making it unclear what this term refers to. Finally, because of the dependency upon a canceled claim, the claims are incomplete.
Claims 10-11 and 13-15 depend on cancelled claim 5. Because of the dependency upon a canceled claim, these also not possible to examine on the merits, and the claim is incomplete. See MPEP 608.01 (n)(V).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara, et. al. (JP2013030449A, see EPO machine translation for citations), in view of Ho, et. al. (WO2021253787A1, see FOR document for citations). Fujiwara teaches a binder (“binder composition”), characterized in that the binder is a polymer containing structural units as represented by formula I (see below analysis of the R4 groups; “[p.3] As other monomers that can be used here, for example, alkyl esters of unsaturated carboxylic acids . . . hydrophilic monomers, crosslinkable monomers, α-olefins . . . Examples of the alkyl ester of unsaturated carboxylic acid include methyl (meth) acrylate, ethyl (meth) acrylate, n-propyl (meth) acrylate,” where the Office notes that n-propyl methacrylate has the requisite ester, wherein the main chain has the single carbon bond as shown in Formula I, and the cross-linkable chain comprises the ester) and formula II (“[p.3] the crosslinkable monomer is . . . . for example . . . propionic acid”),-
PNG
media_image1.png
183
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula I and II respectively.
Wherein R1 ,R2, R3, Rs, R6, and R7 are each independently selected from hydrogen or substituted or unsubstituted Ci-3 alkyl, R4 is selected from hydrogen, cyano, an aldehyde group, or an ester group, and M is selected from H, Li, Na, K or NH4, the polymer comprises a first structural unit represented by formula I where R4 is an aldehyde group or an ester group (here, Fujiwara teaches a monomer comprising an alkyl ester of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, such as methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, and n-propyl methacrylate) and a second structural unit represented by formula I where R4 is hydrogen or cyano (“examples of the α-olefin include ethylene and propylene”), wherein the first structural unit is different from the second structural unit. Fujiwara at p.3.
Regarding the following method, the Office notes that within a product claim, process steps are evaluated for the final structure which is implied by the method steps under product by process treatment. MPEP 2113. This means for the terms “a method for preparing a binder comprises: preparation of an intermediate polymer: polymerizing a monomer represented by formula III to form the intermediate polymer containing at least cyano, an aldehyde group or an ester group,
PNG
media_image2.png
152
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula III of Claim 1.
wherein in the formula III, Ri, R2, and R3 are each independently selected from hydrogen and substituted or unsubstituted Ci-3 alkyl, and R4 is selected from hydrogen, cyano, an aldehyde group, or an ester group: the monomer is selected from a first monomer represented by formula III where R4 is an aldehyde group or an ester group and a second monomer represented by formula III where R4 is hydrogen or cyano, and the second monomer is different from the first monomer in structure; and modification reaction: subjecting the intermediate polymer and an aqueous solution of an alkaline substance to a modification reaction, such that at least part of the cyano, aldehyde groups or ester groups in the intermediate polymer are converted into COOM groups, wherein M is selected from H, Li, Na, K or NH4” this only requires the final monomer having the structure of the intermediate polymer of formula III, having at least one COOM group, which is recited by Fujiwara’s disclosure of “(meth) acrylic acid,” as an additional monomer within polymer particle A.
Fujiwara teaches a polymer particle A for a binder which “may further have a repeating unit derived from another unsaturated monomer in addition to the repeating unit derived from the monomer having a fluorine atom,” and lists the structural units as described above. Because Claim 1 uses “a binder,” without a transition phrase, but does use “characterized by,” “containing,” and later “comprises.” MPEP 2111.03 indicates the transitional term "comprising", is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by.” For this reason, this claim receives open treatment, indicating the presence of the fluorine monomer of polymer A is not precluded.
Regarding “the molar content of the structural unit represented by formula II is 0.1%-60% based on the total number of moles of all structural units in the polymer,” Fujiwara teaches “repeating units derived from crosslinkable monomers Preferably at most 2% by mass, more preferably at most 1% by mass,” but lacks enough information to determine the total molar content.
Ho teaches a process for recycling a metal substrate for battery manufacturing, wherein while the electrode layer is delaminated (removing the initial coating), a polymeric binder and the desired new coating is applied to the metal substrate, holding the current collector together (see [0027 – 33]); this polymeric binder “[0085] provide[s] an exceptionally strong coating-metal substrate adhesion for various applications. In some embodiments, the copolymer of the aqueous polymeric binder comprises a structural unit (a) derived from an acid group-containing monomer. In some embodiments, the copolymer of the aqueous polymeric binder comprises a structural unit (a) derived from an acid group-containing monomer and a structural unit (b) derived from a nitrile group-containing monomer. Based on our studies, the copolymer comprising a structural unit (a) derived from an acid group-containing monomer exhibits a strong adhesive capability. Meanwhile, the copolymer comprising a structural unit (a) derived from an acid group-containing monomer and a structural unit (b) derived from a nitrile group-containing monomer is found to possess an enhanced binding strength in comparison.” Ho at [0086 - 88]. Ho further elaborates “More specifically, the method of the present invention is developed to delaminate a copolymer comprising a structural unit derived from an acid group-containing monomer from a metal substrate surface. Optionally, the copolymer further comprises a structural unit derived from a hydrogen bond-forming group-containing monomer. The hydrogen bond-forming group-containing monomer may be a . . . an ester group-containing monomer, an epoxy group-containing monomer, a fluorine-containing monomer or combinations thereof.” Id. at [0089]. Finally, Ho teaches “In some embodiments, the proportion of structural unit (a) derived from an acid group-containing monomer is from about 15%to about 85% . . . based on the total amount of moles of monomeric units in the copolymer in the polymeric binder.” Id. at [138]. Finally, Ho teaches “Structural unit (a) is derived from an acid group-containing monomer. Any monomer that has at least one acid group may be used as acid group-containing monomer without any specific limitations,” any carboxylic acid containing monomer. Id. at [125].
Because Ho teaches a copolymer comprising “any” carboxylic acid group as a broad genus, and an ester group, this logically implicates the copolymer of Fujiwara, which comprises n-propyl methacrylate, propionic acid, and methacrylic acid, and specifically the desirable range of the structural unit group II.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the binder of Fujiwara with the molar concentration range of the acid group containing monomer of Ho, such that “the molar content of the structural unit represented by formula II is 0.1%-60% based on the total number of moles of all structural units in the polymer,” because Ho teaches benefits to adhesion and binding force. Further, an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 1 is obvious over Fujiwara, in view of Ho.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725