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
Applicant’s election without traverse of species B in the reply filed on 8/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (HP H04179052 A, cited in the 4/09/2026 IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Sato teaches a secondary battery (Abstract): comprising an aqueous electrolyte (Page 3 – alkaline electrolyte), a positive electrode (Page 3 – positive electrode), and a negative electrode (Page 3 – positive electrode), wherein at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode comprises a first binder, and the first binder comprises a fluorine-based resin and an acrylic resin (Page 3 – polyacrylate, carboxymethylcellulose, and fluororesin).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato teaches the battery of Claim 1. The binder comprises polyacrylate (Page 3), which would be considered an acrylic acid ester.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (HP H04179052 A, cited in the 4/09/2026 IDS).
Regarding Claim 2, Sato teaches the battery of Claim 1. The polyacrylate may be present in an amount of 0.005 to 1 part by weight, the carboxymethylcellulose may be present in an amount of 0.01 to 1 part by weight, and the fluororesin may be present in an amount of 0.5 to 7 parts by weight (Page 3). The fluororesin may be polytetrafluoroethylene (Page 4). Assuming each component is present in an equal weight amount of 100g (1 part by weight), there would be about 1.78 moles of polyacrylate units (about 56 g/mol), about 0.56 moles of carboxymethylcellulose units (about 180 g/mol), and about 1 mol of polytetrafluoroethylene (about 100 g/mol). Polyacrylate has 2 oxygen atoms in its structure, carboxymethylcellulose has 6 oxygen atoms, and polytetrafluoroethylene has 4 fluorine atoms. Thus, the AF/(AF+AO+2AN) would equal 4/(4+(1.78)2+(0.56)6), or about 0.366, which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.95.
Thus, Sato teaches materials and amounts that would result in at least an overlapping range for the value of Formula (1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (Aqueous electrolyte design for super-stable 2.5 V LiMn2O4 || Li4Ti5O12 pouch cells, cited in the 8/30/2023 IDS) in view of Naoto (JP 2006253157 A, cited in the 4/12/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu teaches a secondary battery (Abstract) comprising: an aqueous electrolyte, a positive electrode, and a negative electrode (Title; Abstract), wherein at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode comprises a first binder, and the first binder comprises a fluorine-based resin (Page 4 – polyvinylidene fluoride binder).
Xu does not disclose that the binder also comprises an acrylic resin or that the binder is used in the positive electrode.
Naoto teaches a battery where an acrylonitrile-butadiene-based rubber and a polyvinylidene-fluoride-based polymer are used as a binder for an electrode (Abstract). The polyvinylidene-based polymer suppresses an increase in the internal resistance of the battery (0003) but has low adhesion (0004) while the acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber has high adhesion (0005) but increases the internal resistance (0006). However, the combination of the two allows for improvement of the energy density and cycle characteristics of the battery (0007).
Although the battery of Naoto utilizes a non-aqueous electrolyte, it has been held that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 F).
In this case, polyvinylidene-based polymers are known binders for aqueous electrolytes (Xu: Page 4) and the disclosed benefits of the acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (high adhesion) are a property of the material and would not depend on the type of electrolyte used. Thus, it would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that the benefits of the binder of Naoto, improved energy density and cycle characteristics would also apply to electrodes of aqueous batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the binders of the electrodes of Xu to comprise both a polyvinylidene-fluoride-based polymer and an acrylonitrile-butadiene-based rubber as taught by Naoto in order to provide improved energy density and cycle characteristics.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Xu teaches the battery of Claim 1. The acrylic resin is a polymer comprising at least acrylonitrile (Naoto: Abstract – acrylonitrile-butadiene-based rubber).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Xu teaches the battery of Claim 1. The fluorine-based resin is a polymer comprising vinylidene fluoride (Naoto: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Xu teaches battery of Claim 1. An SEI layer is formed on the surface of the anode (Xu: Page 3, Col. 2 – Page 4, Col. 1) which has a peak in the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopic (XPS) spectrum of about 400 eV due to the presence of nitrogen in the electrolyte (Xu: Page 4, Col. 1; Fig. 3b). Accordingly, the presence of nitrogen in the acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber in the binder would also result in a peak of about 400 eV when measuring a surface of at least one of the positive electrode or negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Xu teaches the battery of Claim 1. The aqueous electrolyte comprises at least an organic sulfur compound (Xu: Abstract - LiTFSI).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Xu teaches the battery of Claim 1. The negative electrode comprises the first binder as a negative electrode binder (See rejection of Claim 1 above), and a surface of the negative electrode comprises at least lithium fluoride (Xu: Page 4, Col. 1 – an SEI layer is formed on the surface of the anode that comprises LiF).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Xu teaches the battery of Claim 1. The positive electrode comprises the first binder as a positive electrode binder (See rejection of Claim 1 above) and a lithium manganese composite oxide as the active material (Xu: Title, Abstract – LiMn2O4).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Xu teaches the battery of Claim 1. The negative electrode comprises the first binder as a negative electrode binder (See rejection of Claim 1 above) and lithium titanate as the active material (Xu: Title, Abstract – Li4Ti5O12). According to paragraph 0078 of the instant specification, lithium titanate with the formula Li4Ti5O12 would have a spinel structure.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Naoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seki (US 20190296344 A1).
Regarding Claims 12-14, modified Xu teaches the battery of Claim 1. Modified Xu does not teach a battery pack comprising the battery of Claim 1.
Seki teaches a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells (0136). The battery pack may comprise plural secondary batteries that are connected to each other in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series and in parallel (0137) (Claim 14). The battery pack can comprise a protective circuit (0137) and an eternal power distribution terminal (0138) (Claim 13).
Seki is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely battery packs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the batteries of modified Xu in the battery pack taught by Seki as it is a known use for battery cells and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of battery cells used in a suitable manner.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, modified Xu teaches the battery pack of Claim 1. Modified Xu does not teach that the battery pack is used in a vehicle.
Seki teaches that a battery pack may be used in a vehicle (0153). The vehicle may comprise a mechanism for converting kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy (0154) (Claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the battery pack of modified Xu in the vehicle taught by Seki as it is a known use for a battery pack and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a battery pack used in a suitable manner.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Xu teaches the battery pack of Claim 12. Modified Xu does not teach that the battery pack is used in a stationary power source.
Seki teaches a stationary power source comprising a battery pack (0182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the battery pack of modified Xu in stationary power source taught by Seki as it is a known use for a battery pack and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a battery pack used in a suitable manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights