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
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, and 17 have been amended.
Claim 18 has been added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on August 21st, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of May 28th, 2026
The objections to claims 5, 11, and 17 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 11, 15, and 17 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 102 rejections of claims 1-4 over Son (KR 20130005875 A) are maintained.
The 103 rejection of claim 5 over Son is maintained.
The 103 rejections of claims 6-17 of Kwack (US 2023/0207771 A1) and further in view of Son are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Son's , a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Son’s polymeric disclosure includes the claimed PVdF-backbone and carboxylic group functional group. Therefore Son’s material reads on the claimed limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that neither Son nor Kwack discuss or recognize that the claimed binder affects the elution/dissolution of lithium polysulfide, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (KR 20130005875 A).
Regarding claim 1, Son discloses a PVdF-based binder [0001] able to be dissolve in an organic solvent [0024] that has copolymers grafted onto it which have hydrophilic functional groups [0019], including a carboxylic group [0020]. This carboxylic group is configured to suppress elution of lithium polysulfide from an electrode by controlling dissolution of said lithium polysulfide due to its structure as mentioned in paragraph [0016] in the PG-Pub of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, Son continues to disclose that a functional group may be an acrylate group (-COOR, where the R may be a C1 alkyl which corresponds to a CH3 group) [0020]. This results in a structure where the “R” in the claimed Chemical Formula is OCH3. The formula is depicted below for convenience and clarity.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Son’s Example 1 includes PVdF-g-PAA as a binder in a positive electrode active material slurry [0048].
Regarding claim 4, Son teaches that a viscosity adjusting agent may be added up to 30% by weight of the total weight of the electrode mixture, and those agents include polymers such as carboxymethylcellulose and polyvinylidene fluoride which are also used as binders [0029]. Including such a polymer in a positive active material slurry alongside with the modified PVdF-based binder would, for all intents and purposes, be the same as adding a composite binder to the active material slurry. Therefore, Son teaches the usage of a binder comprised of the modified PVdF-based binder and an additional polymer binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride. Furthermore, Son teaches that the agents may be “carboxymethylcellulose, polyvinylidene fluoride, and the like”, which indicates that compounds similar to those (such as other polymers commonly used as binders in active material slurries) may be used [0029]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Son implicitly teaches that many other unnamed binders would be suitable to be used as viscosity adjusting agents, including many of the other polymer binders recited in claim 4.
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son. Son teaches that a viscosity adjusting agent may be added up to 30% by weight of the total weight of the electrode mixture [0029] and that the modified PVdF-based binder may be contained in an amount of “2 wt% to 3.5 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode mixture” [0001]. The combination of the modified binder and the viscosity modifier comprise a composite binder. Furthermore, since the mass of the polymeric viscosity modifier may be 2.5% - 3.5%, a range within 0% - 30%, an example of the ratio of the modified binder to the polymeric viscosity modifier may be 50:50 by mass based on the total weight of the composite binder. Therefore, the mass ranges taught by Son overlap with the claimed ranges where the modified binder has a range of 1% - 99% and the polymeric binder has a range of 1% - 99% based on the total mass of the composite binder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Son’s modified PVdF-based binder and a second binder polymer in a positive electrode with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwack (US 2023/0207771 A1), and further in view of Son (KR 20130005875 A). The combination of the two will henceforth be referred to as modified Kwack.
Regarding claim 6, Kwack teaches a positive electrode slurry for a lithium-sulfur secondary battery comprising a sulfur/carbon composite ([0035] – [0039]) and a conductive agent such as aluminum powder or a conductive polymer [0047]. Kwack teaches that a binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride [0043] but fails to teach a binder that includes a modified PVdF-based binder that has a carboxylic or carbonyl group grafted as a side chain. Son is analogous art to Kwack because both discuss materials used in lithium-ion batteries. Son, as described above, teaches the claimed binder. The carboxylic group in said binder is configured to suppress elution of lithium polysulfide from an electrode by controlling dissolution of said lithium polysulfide due to its structure as mentioned in paragraph [0016] in the PG-Pub of the instant application. Therefore, Son’s material reads on the claimed limitations.
Although Kwack does not explicitly teach that a modified PVdF-based binder may be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Son’s binder would be suitable to be used as a binder in Kwack’s disclosure. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the binder taught by Son in the positive active material slurry taught by Kwack. This positive active material slurry would ultimately become a positive electrode, resulting in the claimed positive electrode comprising the sulfur/carbon composite, the conductive agent, and the claimed binder.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 include limitations that are included in the 102 and 103 rejections over Son. It has been established that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include Son’s binder in Kwack’s positive active material slurry (which would then become the claimed positive electrode of claim 6). Therefore, it follows that any positive electrode that includes Son’s binder would also include qualities or components described above. Therefore, the positive electrode of modified Kwack, may include a binder that has, grafted onto it, a functional group depicted by the claimed Chemical Formula mentioned above (as required by claim 7). The positive electrode of modified Kwack may also include PVdF-g-PAA (as required by claim 8). The positive electrode modified Kwack may also include a binder comprised of a modified PVdF-based binder and a second polymer binder (such as PVdF as required by claim 10) with the required composition by mass that is required by claim 11.
Regarding claim 9, Son teaches that the amount of modified PVdF-based binder in the positive active material slurry may be between 2 – 3.5 wt% based on the total weight of the active material mixture [0001]. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 – 50 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Son’s modified PVdF-based binder in modified Kwack’s positive electrode with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Kwack does not teach the relationship between the modified binder and the polymer binder. Son teaches that the modified binder may have a mass of 2.5% - 3.5% [0016] based on the total mass of the positive active material. Son continues to teach that a viscosity adjusting agent (such as polymers like carboxymethylcellulose or polyvinylidene fluoride, [0029]), may be added to further promote adhesion [0028] at a weight percent of 0% - 30 % based on the total mass of the positive active material [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add an additional polymeric viscosity modifier to modified Kwack’s positive electrode to further promote adhesion. The combination of the modified binder and the viscosity modifier comprise a composite binder. Furthermore, since the mass of the polymeric viscosity modifier may be 2.5% - 3.5%, a range within 0% - 30%, an example of the ratio of the modified binder to the polymeric viscosity modifier may be 50:50 by mass based on the total weight of the composite binder. Therefore, the mass ranges taught by Son overlap with the claimed ranges where the modified binder has a range of 1% - 99% and the polymeric binder has a range of 1% - 99% based on the total mass of the composite binder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 12, Kwack teaches a positive electrode including a sulfur/carbon composite, a conductive agent, and a binder as described above. Kwack also teaches a positive electrode assembly that contains a current collector (abstract). Kwack, however, fails to teach the usage of a modified PVdF-based binder. As described above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Son’s modified PVdF-binder in Kwack’s disclosure. That modified binder is also configured to interact with lithium polysulfide to suppress elution of lithium polysulfide by controlling dissolution of the lithium polysulfide because the binder has the required structure. Kwack also fails to teach a lithium sulfur battery that further comprises a lithium negative electrode, an electrolyte, and a separator disposed between the positive and negative electrodes. Son teaches that the battery may have a separator, electrolyte, and a negative electrode [0033] where the negative electrode may contain lithium and a current collector (Son, abstract). Lithium-sulfur cathodes are designed for and intended to be used in batteries, including conventional batteries described by Son. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use modified Kwack’s positive electrode with the modified PVdF-based binder that is suitable for use in Son’s battery that further comprises a lithium-based negative electrode, electrolyte, and a separator with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 16, they include limitations that are included in the 102 rejections over Son, the 103 rejections over Son, and the 103 rejections of claims 6-11 over modified Kwack. It has been established that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include Son’s binder in Kwack’s positive active material slurry, which would then become the claimed positive electrode that is suitable to be used in modified Kwack’s lithium-sulfur battery. Therefore, it follows that modified Kwack’s lithium-sulfur battery would also include qualities or components described above. Therefore, modified Kwack’s lithium-sulfur battery may comprise a binder that has, grafted onto it, a functional group depicted by the claimed Chemical Formula above (Son, [0020]; as required by claim 13). It may also comprise a binder that includes PVdF-g-PAA (Son, [0048]; as required by claim 14). It may also comprise a binder comprised of a modified PVdF-based binder and a second polymer binder, standard PVdF (Son’s viscosity adjusting agent, [0028] – [0029]; as required by claim 16).
Regarding claim 15, Son teaches that the modified binder may be included in a range of 2.5 % - 3.5% by weight based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material [0016], overlapping with the claimed range of 1 % - 50%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 17, Kwack does not teach the relationship between the modified binder and the polymer binder in their positive electrode in the lithium-sulfur battery.. Son teaches that the modified binder may have a mass of 2.5% - 3.5% [0016] based on the total mass of the positive active material. Son continues to teach that a viscosity adjusting agent (such as polyvinylidene fluoride, [0029]), may be added to further promote adhesion [0028] at a weight percent of 0% - 30 % based on the total mass of the positive active material [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add an additional polymeric viscosity modifier to modified Kwack’s positive electrode to further promote adhesion. The combination of the modified binder and the viscosity modifier comprise a composite binder. Furthermore, since the mass of the polymeric viscosity modifier may be 2.5% - 3.5%, a range within 0% - 30%, an example of the ratio of the modified binder to the polymeric viscosity modifier may be 50:50 by mass based on the total weight of the composite binder. Therefore, the mass ranges taught by Son overlap with the claimed ranges where the modified binder has a range of 1% - 99% and the polymeric binder has a range of 1% - 99% based on the total mass of the composite binder. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2022/0384849 A1) and further in view of Son. Jung discloses a lithium-sulfur battery where the loading amount of sulfur in the positive electrode is in the range of 2 – 15 mg/cm2. While this does not correspond with the total amount of loading amount of material of the positive electrode [0112], this necessitates that this range involves a loading greater than 8 mg/cm2. Therefore, the range taught by Jung overlaps with the claimed range of 8 mg/cm2. Jung continues to disclose the amount of binder in the positive electrode may be between in the range of 1% – 10% by mass based on the total amount of mass in the positive active material layer. This range encompasses the claimed value of 5%, thus rendering that claimed limitation obvious. The ranges taught by Jung overlap and enclose, respectively, the range and value claimed by the Applicant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a positive electrode with the claimed loading amounts and amount of binder.
Jung fails to teach the specifically claimed binder. Son is analogous art to Jung because both discuss batteries (Son, title; Jung, title). However, Son teaches a PVdF-based binder [0001] able to be dissolved in an organic solvent [0024] that has copolymers grafted onto it which have hydrophilic functional groups [0019], including a carboxylic group [0020]. This carboxylic group is configured to suppress elution of lithium polysulfide from an electrode by controlling dissolution of said lithium polysulfide due to its structure as mentioned in paragraph [0016] of the published application. Son’s binder is suitable for the intended use of a binder in a positive electrode (Son, [0001]) and Jung teaches that PVdF binders are suitable to be used in their electrode (Jung, [0099] – [0100]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Son’s binder in Jung’s positive electrode based on the binder’s suitability for the intended use of binding Jung’s electrode active material. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2022/0216476 A1) discloses a polymer coated on carbon in a positive electrode [0042] whose purpose is to prevent elution of lithium polysulfide from the positive electrode [0040].
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights